pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.07377 · v1 · pith:NREGT5NLnew · submitted 2026-06-05 · 🪐 quant-ph

Coherent versus stochastic error injection on a repetition-code logical qubit in superconducting hardware

S. L. M. van der Meer , M. Serra-Peralta , Y. Xin , M. Finkel , H. M. Veen , M. W. Beekman , L. DiCarlo , B. M. Terhal This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 21:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum error correctionrepetition codecoherent errorsstochastic errorssuperconducting qubitslogical fidelitytransmon processorfrequency drifts
0
0 comments X

The pith

Experiment on superconducting repetition codes finds no difference in logical fidelity between coherent and stochastic error injection.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper uses the bitflip repetition code on a transmon processor to test whether coherent errors impact logical performance differently than stochastic errors, as theory predicts. Simulations using a free-fermion model and subset sampling forecast a measurable gap in logical fidelity for both distance-3 and distance-5 codes. The hardware runs instead show identical results for the two error types. The authors propose that small qubit-frequency drifts convert the intended coherent errors into effectively stochastic noise during circuit execution. This null result is presented as a step toward understanding how real-device imperfections alter the noise model assumptions in quantum error correction.

Core claim

In the experiment, we do not observe the difference in logical fidelity predicted by simulation for either the distance-3 or distance-5 repetition codes. We hypothesize that this discrepancy could be explained by small drifts in qubit frequencies, which introduce phase-coherent noise that 'stochastifies' the injected coherent errors.

What carries the argument

Bitflip repetition code on transmon hardware, with coherent error injection tested against stochastic injection and compared via free-fermion simulation plus subset sampling.

If this is right

  • Coherent errors may be effectively converted to stochastic noise by typical hardware drifts, altering expected QEC thresholds.
  • Repetition-code logical fidelity under coherent injection matches stochastic injection once real-device effects are present.
  • Understanding coherent-error impact on experimental QEC requires models that include frequency-drift conversion.
  • Scalable simulation techniques for repetition codes can be validated against hardware when noise-type distinctions are tested.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Tighter frequency control or dynamical decoupling during error injection could restore the theoretically predicted fidelity gap.
  • The same stochastification mechanism may operate in surface-code experiments and other QEC architectures on similar hardware.
  • QEC threshold calculations that assume pure coherent noise may overestimate performance penalties unless hardware drifts are quantified.
  • Future experiments could inject errors at varying drift rates to map the crossover from coherent to stochastic behavior.

Load-bearing premise

The injected coherent errors remain phase-coherent throughout circuit execution and are not turned into stochastic noise by unmodeled qubit-frequency drifts or hardware imperfections.

What would settle it

Repeating the experiment with active qubit-frequency stabilization that eliminates drifts during the circuit and then observing the simulated fidelity gap between coherent and stochastic injections.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.07377 by B. M. Terhal, H. M. Veen, L. DiCarlo, M. Finkel, M. Serra-Peralta, M. W. Beekman, S. L. M. van der Meer, Y. Xin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: This three-qubit system can be viewed as a mini￾mal error correcting code where the logical operators are XL = XX, ZL = ZI, and YL = Y X. Consider injected RX(θ) gates only on the two data qubits. Given the input state |ψA⟩ which depends on the rotation angle θ, the outgoing state for the no-error ZZ parity ( ( ( ( s FIG. 1. Single weight-2 Z-type stabilizer used as building block in the bitflip repetition… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Repetition code with error injection circuits and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Reconstruction of experimental average detection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Baseline experimental performance of individual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Characterization of effective noise source contri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Experimental and free-fermion simulation results of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Impact of coherent phase errors on repetition code [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The performance of quantum error correction (QEC) codes is limited by the underlying physical noise. Theoretical studies show that coherent and stochastic noise have different effects when performing QEC with either surface or repetition codes. We use the bitflip repetition code, realized in a transmon quantum processor, as a testbed to experimentally study the impact of injecting coherent versus stochastic errors on the logical performance. We adapt a scalable free-fermion simulator to simulate the experiments and we modify a subset sampling technique to efficiently sample stochastic noise in the quantum circuit. In the experiment, we do not observe the difference in logical fidelity predicted by simulation for either the distance-3 or distance-5 repetition codes. We hypothesize that this discrepancy could be explained by small drifts in qubit frequencies, which introduce phase-coherent noise that `stochastifies' the injected coherent errors. Our work contributes to advancing an understanding of how coherent errors affect experimental QEC.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental comparison of coherent versus stochastic error injection into distance-3 and distance-5 bit-flip repetition codes on a superconducting transmon processor. Free-fermion simulations predict a difference in logical fidelity between the two noise types, but the hardware experiment observes no such difference. The authors hypothesize that small qubit-frequency drifts convert the injected coherent errors into effectively stochastic noise, and they present adapted simulation techniques including a modified subset-sampling method for stochastic circuits.

Significance. If the injected errors remain verifiably phase-coherent over the full syndrome-extraction circuit, the null result would indicate that repetition-code logical fidelity is insensitive to the coherent/stochastic distinction under realistic hardware conditions, with direct implications for QEC benchmarking. The scalable simulation framework is a methodological strength that could be reused for other codes.

major comments (2)
  1. [Discussion] Discussion section (paragraph on discrepancy with simulation): The hypothesis that qubit frequency drifts 'stochastify' the coherent errors is offered to explain the null result, yet no measured drift spectrum, bound on frequency stability, or direct coherence check (e.g., Ramsey or echo sequence performed with the injection pulse present) is reported. This assumption is load-bearing for interpreting the experimental observation as a property of the code rather than an artifact of imperfect coherent injection.
  2. [Experimental methods] Experimental methods / hardware implementation section: Pulse parameters, timing, and calibration details for the coherent error injection are not specified at a level that permits independent verification that phase coherence is preserved throughout the multi-round syndrome extraction; without this, the central claim that the experiment tests coherent versus stochastic behavior cannot be fully assessed.
minor comments (2)
  1. Figure captions and axis labels could more explicitly indicate which curves correspond to coherent versus stochastic injection for each distance.
  2. [Simulation methods] The description of the subset-sampling modification for stochastic noise would benefit from a short pseudocode block or explicit reference to the original technique being altered.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments. We address each major point below, indicating planned revisions to the manuscript where the concerns can be met by additional text or clarification.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Discussion] Discussion section (paragraph on discrepancy with simulation): The hypothesis that qubit frequency drifts 'stochastify' the coherent errors is offered to explain the null result, yet no measured drift spectrum, bound on frequency stability, or direct coherence check (e.g., Ramsey or echo sequence performed with the injection pulse present) is reported. This assumption is load-bearing for interpreting the experimental observation as a property of the code rather than an artifact of imperfect coherent injection.

    Authors: We agree that the hypothesis would be more robust with direct experimental bounds on frequency stability. No such dedicated measurements (Ramsey or echo sequences with the injection pulse) were performed in this run. In revision we will expand the discussion to cite typical transmon drift rates from the literature and estimate the accumulated phase variance over the circuit duration, while explicitly noting that the hypothesis remains plausible rather than definitively proven by our data. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Experimental methods] Experimental methods / hardware implementation section: Pulse parameters, timing, and calibration details for the coherent error injection are not specified at a level that permits independent verification that phase coherence is preserved throughout the multi-round syndrome extraction; without this, the central claim that the experiment tests coherent versus stochastic behavior cannot be fully assessed.

    Authors: We will revise the experimental methods section to supply the missing details: pulse amplitudes and durations used for the coherent rotation, the relative timing of the injection pulse within each syndrome-extraction round, and the calibration protocol employed to set the target rotation angle. These additions should enable readers to evaluate whether phase coherence is maintained across rounds. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Experimental measurement with independent simulation comparison; no derivation reduces to inputs by construction

full rationale

The paper's central result is an experimental observation of logical fidelity under coherent versus stochastic error injection on hardware repetition codes, contrasted with free-fermion simulation. No load-bearing step equates a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or definitional renaming. The offered hypothesis about frequency drifts is presented as an unverified explanation for the null result rather than a derived claim. The work is self-contained against external hardware benchmarks and does not invoke uniqueness theorems or ansatzes from prior self-citations as forcing the outcome.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. The hypothesis of frequency drifts is an explanatory conjecture rather than a modeled entity.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5728 in / 1085 out tokens · 17410 ms · 2026-06-27T21:39:37.593203+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Gottesman,Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection(California Institute of Technology, 1997)

    D. Gottesman,Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection(California Institute of Technology, 1997)

    1997

  2. [2]

    The Heisenberg Representation of Quantum Computers

    D. Gottesman, The Heisenberg Representation of Quan- tum Computers (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9807006 [quant- ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    Wootters, Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction, Phys

    C.H.Bennett, D.P.DiVincenzo, J.A.Smolin,andW.K. Wootters, Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. A54, 3824 (1996)

    1996

  4. [4]

    Kitaev, A

    A. Kitaev, A. Shen, and M. Vyalyi,Classical and Quantum Computation(American Mathematical Soci- ety, 2002)

    2002

  5. [5]

    Y. R. Sanders, J. J. Wallman, and B. C. Sanders, Bound- ing quantum gate error rate based on reported average fidelity, New J. Phys.18, 012002 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    Suzuki, K

    Y. Suzuki, K. Fujii, and M. Koashi, Efficient simulation of quantum error correction under coherent error based on the nonunitary free-fermionic formalism, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 190503 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    Dennis, A

    E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, Topo- logical quantum memory, J. Math. Phys.43(2002)

    2002

  8. [8]

    C. Wang, J. Harrington, and J. Preskill, Confinement- Higgs transition in a disordered gauge theory and the accuracy threshold for quantum memory, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)303, 31 (2003)

    2003

  9. [9]

    See supplemental material

  10. [10]

    Bravyi, M

    S. Bravyi, M. Englbrecht, R. König, and N. Peard, Cor- recting coherent errors with surface codes, npj Quantum Inf.4, 55 (2018)

    2018

  11. [11]

    F.Venn, J.Behrends,andB.Béri,Coherent-errorthresh- old for surface codes from Majorana delocalization, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 060603 (2023)

    2023

  12. [12]

    Hakkaku, S

    K. Hakkaku, S. Mitarai and K. Fujii, Sampling-based quasiprobability simulation for fault-tolerant quantum error correction on the surface codes under coherent noise, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 043130 (2021)

    2021

  13. [13]

    Bravyi, M

    S. Bravyi, M. Suchara, and A. Vargo, Efficient algorithms for maximum likelihood decoding in the surface code, Phys. Rev. A90, 032326 (2014)

    2014

  14. [14]

    Á.MártonandJ.K.Asbóth,Coherenterrorsandreadout errors in the surface code, Quantum7, 1116 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    Takou and K

    E. Takou and K. R. Brown, Estimating and decoding coherent errors of QEC experiments with detector error models (2025), arXiv:2510.23797 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Google Quantum A.I.et al., Quantum error correction belowthesurfacecodethreshold,Nature638,920(2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    Greenbaum and Z

    D. Greenbaum and Z. Dutton, Modeling coherent errors in quantum error correction, Quantum Sci. Technol.3, 015007 (2017)

    2017

  18. [18]

    J. K. Iverson and J. Preskill, Coherence in logical quan- tum channels, New J. Phys.22, 073066 (2020)

    2020

  19. [20]

    Kelly, R

    J. Kelly, R. Barends, A. G. Fowler, A. Megrant, E. Jef- frey, T.White, D.Sank, J.Mutus, B.Campbell, Y.Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, I.-C. Hoi, C. Neill, P. J. J. O’Malley, C. Quintana, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, A. N. Cleland, J. Wenner, and J. M. Martinis, State preservation by repetitive error detection in a supercon- ducting quantum circuit, Nature51...

    2015

  20. [21]

    Putterman, K

    H. Putterman, K. Noh, C. T. Hann, G. S. MacCabe, S. Aghaeimeibodi, R. N. Patel, M. Lee, W. M. Jones, H. Moradinejad, R. Rodriguez,et al., Hardware-efficient quantum error correction via concatenated bosonic qubits, Nature638, 927 (2025)

    2025

  21. [22]

    Versluis, S

    R. Versluis, S. Poletto, N. Khammassi, B. Tarasinski, N. Haider, D. J. Michalak, A. Bruno, K. Bertels, and L. DiCarlo, Scalable quantum circuit and control for a superconducting surface code, Phys. Rev. A8, 034021 (2017)

    2017

  22. [23]

    J. F. Marques, H. Ali, B. M. Varbanov, M. Finkel, H. M. Veen, S. L. M. van der Meer, S. Valles-Sanclemente, N. Muthusubramanian, M. Beekman, N. Haider, B. M. Terhal, and L. DiCarlo, All-microwave leakage reduction 10 units for quantum error correction with superconducting transmon qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 250602 (2023)

    2023

  23. [24]

    Vallés-Sanclemente, S

    S. Vallés-Sanclemente, S. L. M. van der Meer, M. Finkel, N. Muthusubramanian, M. Beekman, H. Ali, J. F. Mar- ques, C.Zachariadis, H.M.Veen, T.Stavenga, N.Haider, and L. DiCarlo, Post-fabrication frequency trimming of coplanar-waveguide resonators in circuit QED quantum processors, App. Phys. Lett.123, 034004 (2023)

    2023

  24. [25]

    Krinner, N

    S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, A. Remm, D. P. Agustin, E. Genois, C. Leroux, C. Hellings, S. Lazar, F. Swiadek, J. Herrmann, G. J. Norris, C. K. Andersen, M. Müller, A. Blais, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Realizing repeated quantum error correction in a distance-three surface code, Nature605, 669 (2022)

    2022

  25. [26]

    P. Zhao, K. Linghu, Z. Li, P. Xu, R. Wang, G. Xue, Y. Jin, and H. Yu, Quantum crosstalk analysis for si- multaneous gate operations on superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. X Quantum3, 020301 (2022)

    2022

  26. [27]

    Fruitwala, A

    N. Fruitwala, A. Hashim, A. D. Rajagopala, Y. Xu, J. Hines, R. K. Naik, I. Siddiqi, K. Klymko, G. Huang, and K. Nowrouzi, Hardware-efficient randomized compil- ing (2024), arXiv:2406.13967 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  27. [28]

    J.-S. Kim, L. S. Bishop, A. D. Córcoles, S. Merkel, J. A. Smolin, and S. Sheldon, Hardware-efficient random cir- cuits to classify noise in a multiqubit system, Phys. Rev. A104, 022609 (2021)

    2021

  28. [29]

    C.Gidney,Stim: afaststabilizercircuitsimulator,Quan- tum5, 497 (2021)

    2021

  29. [30]

    Google Quantum A.I.et al., Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit, Nature614, 676 (2023)

    2023

  30. [31]

    Y. Xin, S. L. M. van der Meer, M. Serra-Peralta, T. H. F. Vroomans, M. Finkel, H. M. Veen, M. W. Beekman, and L. DiCarlo, Improved error correction with leakage re- duction units built into qubit measurement in a super- conducting quantum processor (2025), arXiv:2511.17460 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [32]

    Google Quantum A.I.et al., Exponential suppression of bit or phase errors with cyclic error correction, Nature 595, 383 (2021)

    2021

  32. [33]

    T.E.O’Brien, B.M.Tarasinski,andL.DiCarlo,Density- matrix simulation of small surface codes under current and projected experimental noise, npj Quantum Inf.3 (2017)

    2017

  33. [34]

    P. V. Klimov, J. Kelly, Z. Chen, M. Neeley, A. Megrant, B. Burkett, R. Barends, K. Arya, B. Chiaro,et al., Fluc- tuations of energy-relaxation times in superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 090502 (2018)

    2018

  34. [35]

    Schlör, J

    S. Schlör, J. Lisenfeld, C. Müller, A. Bilmes, A. Schnei- der, D. P. Pappas, A. V. Ustinov, and M. Weides, Cor- relating decoherence in transmon qubits: Low frequency noise by single fluctuators, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 190502 (2019)

    2019

  35. [36]

    V. D. Kurilovich, G. Roberts, L. S. Martin, M. McEwen, A. Eickbusch, L. Faoro, L. B. Ioffe, J. Atalaya, A. Bilmes, J.M.Kreikebaum,et al.,Correlatederrorburstsinagap- engineered superconducting qubit array, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18228 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [37]

    Gutiérrez, M

    M. Gutiérrez, M. Müller, and A. Bermúdez, Transversal- ity and lattice surgery: Exploring realistic routes toward coupled logical qubits with trapped-ion quantum proces- sors, Phys. Rev. A99, 022330 (2019)

    2019

  37. [38]

    Heußen, D

    S. Heußen, D. Winter, M. Rispler, and M. Müller, Dy- namical subset sampling of quantum error-correcting protocols, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 013177 (2024)

    2024

  38. [39]

    H. Ali, J. Marques, O. Crawford, J. Majaniemi, M. Serra- Peralta, D. Byfield, B. Varbanov, B. M. Terhal, L. Di- Carlo, and E. T. Campbell, Reducing the error rate of a superconducting logical qubit using analog readout in- formation, Phys. Rev. A22, 044031 (2024)

    2024

  39. [40]

    B. Pato, Q. Miao, and K. R. Brown, Optimal decod- ing of 2d compass codes under coherent noise, in2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Vol. 2 (IEEE, 2024) pp. 448– 449

    2024

  40. [41]

    Higgott, Pymatching: A python package for de- coding quantum codes with minimum-weight perfect matching, ACM T

    O. Higgott, Pymatching: A python package for de- coding quantum codes with minimum-weight perfect matching, ACM T. Quantum Comput.3, 1 (2022), arXiv:2105.13082 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  41. [42]

    B. M. Tarasinski, V. P. Ostroukh, X. Bonet-Monroig, T. E. O’Brien, and B. M. Varbanov, quantumsim,https: //gitlab.com/quantumsim(2016)

    2016

  42. [43]

    B. M. Varbanov, F. Battistel, B. M. Tarasinski, V. P. Ostroukh, T. E. O’Brien, L. DiCarlo, and B. M. Terhal, Leakage detection for a transmon-based surface code, npj Quantum Inf.6, 102 (2020)

    2020

  43. [44]

    Battistel,Mitigating leakage and noise in supercon- ducting quantum computing, PhD dissertation, Technis- che Universiteit Delft (2022)

    F. Battistel,Mitigating leakage and noise in supercon- ducting quantum computing, PhD dissertation, Technis- che Universiteit Delft (2022)

    2022

  44. [45]

    Bravyi, Lagrangian representation for fermionic linear optics, Quantum Information & Computation5, 216–238 (2005)

    S. Bravyi, Lagrangian representation for fermionic linear optics, Quantum Information & Computation5, 216–238 (2005)

    2005

  45. [46]

    B. Pato, J. W. Staples, and K. R. Brown, Logical co- herence in 2D compass codes (2025), arXiv:2405.09287 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [47]

    Hebenstreit, R

    M. Hebenstreit, R. Jozsa, B. Kraus, S. Strelchuk, and M. Yoganathan, All pure fermionic non-Gaussian states are magic states for matchgate computations, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 080503 (2019)

    2019

  47. [48]

    Dias and R

    B. Dias and R. Koenig, Classical simulation of non- Gaussian fermionic circuits, Quantum8, 1350 (2024)

    2024

  48. [49]

    COHERENT VERSUS STOCHASTIC ERROR INJECTION ON A REPETITION-CODE LOGICAL QUBIT IN SUPERCONDUCTING HARDWARE

    O. Reardon-Smith, M. Oszmaniec, and K. Korzekwa, Im- proved simulation of quantum circuits dominated by free fermionic operations, Quantum8, 1549 (2024). 11 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL FOR “COHERENT VERSUS STOCHASTIC ERROR INJECTION ON A REPETITION-CODE LOGICAL QUBIT IN SUPERCONDUCTING HARDWARE” This supplementary material provides additional in- formation sup...

    2024

  49. [50]

    Each highlighted bar represents the contribution that the category brings to the detection probability of that particular noise configuration

    The largest contributing category (ancilla qubitT A 1 ) is highlighted. Each highlighted bar represents the contribution that the category brings to the detection probability of that particular noise configuration. the six characterization circuits. Not all noise parame- ters are fitted simultaneously. First, circuits c.I, II and III are used to fit ancil...

  50. [51]

    [S43, S44]

    CZ gate The CZ gates are modeled using thequantumsimim- plementation for this operation, which follows Ref. [S43, S44]. This model includes leakage as an exchange be- tween the|11⟩and|02⟩states given by |11⟩ → p 1−4L 1 |11⟩+e iϕp L1 |02⟩, |02⟩ → −e −iϕp L1 |11⟩+ p 1−4L 1 |02⟩, (S7) withL 1 the leakage probability (L1 ∼1−2%in our device, see Table SI), and...

  51. [52]

    We model the measurement opera- tions using the assignment matrix and the state-transfer matrix [S23]

    Measurement The simulated circuits only contain single-qubitZ- basis measurements. We model the measurement opera- tions using the assignment matrix and the state-transfer matrix [S23]. The assignment matrix corresponds to Passign(mout| |s⟩in)withm out the measured qutrit out- come and|s⟩in the input state. The state-transfer matrix corresponds toP QND(|s...

  52. [53]

    compute the ideal probabilities of each outcome m∈ {0,1,2}usingP ideal(m) := Tr(Π mρ)/Tr(ρ), withΠ m =|m⟩ ⟨m|,

  53. [54]

    sample an ideal outcome state|s⟩ideal from the dis- tributionP ideal of step 1,

  54. [55]

    sample a noisy outcomemout from the distribution Passign(mout| |s⟩ideal)and set it as the measurement outcome,

  55. [56]

    sample a noisy outgoing state|s⟩out from the dis- tributionP QND(|s⟩out | |s⟩ideal),

  56. [57]

    and project the state toΠsρΠs/Tr(Πsρ)

  57. [58]

    Choice of noise parameters For the most detailed density-matrix simulation, one could directly use the noise parameters extracted from the experimental characterization, such as a Ramsey ex- periment or randomized benchmarking. We have ob- served that these parameters are underestimating the ac- tual noise, leading to simulated detection probabilities and...

  58. [59]

    [S6] described in the previous section to not include ancilla-qubit resets during the QEC rounds

    No reset modification We have adapted the method from Ref. [S6] described in the previous section to not include ancilla-qubit resets during the QEC rounds. First,consider the outcome of theZZchecks in Eq. (S17) to bemfor measurement in- stead ofs. Then, we insert in the model for the next QEC round anXgate depending onm= 0orm= 1after the ancilla qubit is...

  59. [60]

    S5(a) for all simulations trying to capture the performance of the experiment

    Matching the experimental performance We have used the phenomenological noise model de- picted in Fig. S5(a) for all simulations trying to capture the performance of the experiment. In principle, a more detailed simulation option, see also Sec. SVC, would be to pick parameters to match the per- formance of a single parity-check measurement, which is 19 0....