Quantum error detection in a silicon quantum processor - Nature

AbstractQuantum error detection is essential for large-scale universal quantum computation, particularly for quantum error correction. However, the key elements of fault-tolerant quantum computing with silicon qubits, including error detection with stabilizers, remain challenging. Here we report quantum error detection in a donor-based silicon quantum processor comprising four nuclear spin qubits and one electron spin auxiliary qubit. The entanglement capability of this system is validated through the establishment of two-qubit Bell-state entanglement between the nuclear spins and the generation of a four-qubit Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger state with a state fidelity of 88.5 ± 2.3%. We use a four-qubit error detection circuit with stabilizers to detect arbitrary single-qubit errors. We recover the encoded Bell-state entanglement information by performing the Pauli frame update via postprocessing; on the basis of the detected errors, we identify strongly biased noise in our system. Access through your institution Buy or subscribe This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution Access options Access through your institution Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription $32.99 / 30 days cancel any time Learn more Subscribe to this journal Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles $119.00 per year only $9.92 per issue Learn more Buy this articlePurchase on SpringerLinkInstant access to the full article PDF.USD 39.95Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout Fig. 1: Atomic quantum processor in silicon.Fig. 2: Implementation of Toffoli gate and the preparation of Bell states and four-qubit GHZ state.Fig. 3: Arbitrary single-qubit error detection using stabilizer measurements.Fig. 4: Restoration of encoded entanglement information. Data availability The data relevant to this study are available via Zenodo at https://zenodo.org/records/15348336 (ref. 55). Source data are provided with this paper. Code availability All the code relevant to this work is available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request. ReferencesBurkard, G., Ladd, T. D., Pan, A., Nichol, J. M. & Petta, J. R. Semiconductor spin qubits. Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 025003 (2023).Article Google Scholar Zwanenburg, F. A. et al. Silicon quantum electronics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 961–1019 (2013).Article Google Scholar Zheng, G. et al. Rapid gate-based spin read-out in silicon using an on-chip resonator. Nat. Nanotechnol. 14, 742–746 (2019).Article Google Scholar Urdampilleta, M. et al. Gate-based high fidelity spin readout in a CMOS device. Nat. Nanotechnol. 14, 737–741 (2019).Article Google Scholar West, A. et al. Gate-based single-shot readout of spins in silicon. Nat. Nanotechnol. 14, 437–441 (2019).Article Google Scholar Noiri, A. et al. Fast universal quantum gate above the fault-tolerance threshold in silicon. Nature 601, 338–342 (2022).Article Google Scholar Xue, X. et al. Quantum logic with spin qubits crossing the surface code threshold. Nature 601, 343–347 (2022).Article Google Scholar Mądzik, M. T. et al. Precision tomography of a three-qubit donor quantum processor in silicon. Nature 601, 348–353 (2022).Article Google Scholar Mills, A. R. et al. Two-qubit silicon quantum processor with operation fidelity exceeding 99%. Sci. Adv. 8, eabn5130 (2022).Article Google Scholar Huang, J. Y. et al. High-fidelity spin qubit operation and algorithmic initialisation above 1 K. Nature 627, 772–777 (2024).Article Google Scholar Tanttu, T. et al. Assessment of the errors of high-fidelity two-qubit gates in silicon quantum dots. Nat. Phys. 20, 1804–1809 (2024).Article Google Scholar Wang, C.-A. et al. Operating semiconductor quantum processors with hopping spins. Science 385, 447–452 (2024).Article Google Scholar Thorvaldson, I. et al. Grover’s algorithm in a four-qubit silicon processor above the fault-tolerant threshold. Nat. Nanotechnol. 20, 472–477 (2025).Article Google Scholar Steinacker, P. et al. Industry-compatible silicon spin-qubit unit cells exceeding 99% fidelity. Nature 646, 81–87 (2025).Article Google Scholar Weinstein, A. J. et al. Universal logic with encoded spin qubits in silicon. Nature 615, 817–822 (2023).Article Google Scholar Philips, S. G. J. et al. Universal control of a six-qubit quantum processor in silicon. Nature 609, 919–924 (2022).Article Google Scholar Petit, L. et al. Universal quantum logic in hot silicon qubits. Nature 580, 355–359 (2020).Article Google Scholar Yang, C. H. et al. Operation of a silicon quantum processor unit cell above one kelvin. Nature 580, 350–354 (2020).Article Google Scholar Camenzind, L. C. et al. A hole spin qubit in a fin field-effect transistor above 4 kelvin. Nat. Electron. 5, 178–183 (2022).Article Google Scholar Neyens, S. et al. Probing single electrons across 300-mm spin qubit wafers. Nature 629, 80–85 (2024).Article Google Scholar Stuyck, N. D. et al. CMOS compatibility of semiconductor spin qubits. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.03993 (2024).Vinet, M. The path to scalable quantum computing with silicon spin qubits. Nat. Nanotechnol. 16, 1296–1298 (2021).Article Google Scholar Google Quantum AI and Collaborators. Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold. Nature 638, 920–926 (2025).Article Google Scholar Shor, P. W. Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory. Phys. Rev. A 52, 2493–2496 (1995).Article Google Scholar Steane, A. Multiple-particle interference and quantum error correction. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 452, 2551–2577 (1996).Article MathSciNet Google Scholar Preskill, J. Reliable quantum computers. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 454, 385–410 (1998).Article MathSciNet Google Scholar Nielsen, M. A. & Chuang, I. L. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010).Gottesman, D. An introduction to quantum error correction and fault-tolerant quantum computation. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/0904.2557 (2009).Takeda, K., Noiri, A., Nakajima, T., Kobayashi, T. & Tarucha, S. Quantum error correction with silicon spin qubits. Nature 608, 682–686 (2022).Article Google Scholar van Riggelen, F. et al. Phase flip code with semiconductor spin qubits. npj Quantum Inf. 8, 124 (2022).Article Google Scholar Postler, L. et al. Demonstration of fault-tolerant universal quantum gate operations. Nature 605, 675–680 (2022).Article Google Scholar Hastings, M. B. & Haah, J. Dynamically generated logical qubits. Quantum 5, 564 (2021).Article Google Scholar Córcoles, A. D. et al. Demonstration of a quantum error detection code using a square lattice of four superconducting qubits. Nat. Commun. 6, 6979 (2015).Article Google Scholar Bultink, C. C. et al. Protecting quantum entanglement from leakage and qubit errors via repetitive parity measurements. Sci. Adv. 6, eaay3050 (2020).Article Google Scholar Andersen, C. K. et al. Entanglement stabilization using ancilla-based parity detection and real-time feedback in superconducting circuits. npj Quantum Inf. 5, 69 (2019).Article Google Scholar Bussmann, E. et al. Atomic-precision advanced manufacturing for Si quantum computing. MRS Bull. 46, 607–615 (2021).Article Google Scholar He, Y. et al. A two-qubit gate between phosphorus donor electrons in silicon. Nature 571, 371–375 (2019).Article Google Scholar Kranz, L. et al. Exploiting a single-crystal environment to minimize the charge noise on qubits in silicon. Adv. Mater. 32, 2003361 (2020).Article Google Scholar Donnelly, M. B. et al. Noise correlations in an atom-based quantum dot array. Phys. Rev. Appl. 23, 064058 (2025).Article Google Scholar Edlbauer, H. et al. An 11-qubit atom processor in silicon. Nature 648, 569–575 (2025).Article Google Scholar Waldherr, G. et al. Quantum error correction in a solid-state hybrid spin register. Nature 506, 204–207 (2014).Article Google Scholar Yu, N., Duan, R. & Ying, M. Five two-qubit gates are necessary for implementing the Toffoli gate. Phys. Rev. A 88, 010304 (2013).Article Google Scholar Bourennane, M. et al. Experimental detection of multipartite entanglement using witness operators. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 087902 (2004).Article Google Scholar Keith, D. et al. Single-shot spin readout in semiconductors near the shot-noise sensitivity limit. Phys. Rev. X 9, 041003 (2019).

Google Scholar Yoneda, J. et al. Noise-correlation spectrum for a pair of spin qubits in silicon. Nat. Phys. 19, 1793–1798 (2023).Article Google Scholar Boter, J. M. et al. Spatial noise correlations in a Si/SiGe two-qubit device from Bell state coherences. Phys. Rev. B 101, 235133 (2020).Article Google Scholar Tuckett, D. K., Bartlett, S. D., Flammia, S. T. & Brown, B. J. Fault-tolerant thresholds for the surface code in excess of 5% under biased noise. Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 130501 (2020).Article Google Scholar Tiesinga, E., Mohr, P. J., Newell, D. B. & Taylor, B. N. CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2018. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 50, 033105 (2021).Elzerman, J. et al. Single-shot read-out of an individual electron spin in a quantum dot. Nature 430, 431–435 (2004).Article Google Scholar Morello, A. et al. Single-shot readout of an electron spin in silicon. Nature 467, 687–691 (2010).Article Google Scholar Keith, D. et al. Benchmarking high fidelity single-shot readout of semiconductor qubits. New J. Phys. 21, 063011 (2019).Article Google Scholar Banaszek, K., D’ariano, G., Paris, M. & Sacchi, M. Maximum-likelihood estimation of the density matrix. Phys. Rev. A 61, 010304 (1999).Article Google Scholar Lvovsky, A. I. Iterative maximum-likelihood reconstruction in quantum homodyne tomography. J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. 6, S556 (2004).Article Google Scholar Limes, M. E. et al. Numerical study of spin-dependent transition rates within pairs of dipolar and exchange coupled spins with \(s=\frac{1}{2}\) during magnetic resonant excitation. Phys. Rev. B 87, 165204 (2013).Article Google Scholar Zhang, C. et al. Data for ‘quantum error detection in a silicon quantum processor’. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15348336 (2025).Bradley, C. E. et al. A ten-qubit solid-state spin register with quantum memory up to one minute. Phys. Rev. X 9, 031045 (2019).

Google Scholar Steinacker, P. et al. Bell inequality violation in gate-defined quantum dots. Nat. Commun. 16, 3606 (2025).Article Google Scholar Pla, J. J. et al. High-fidelity readout and control of a nuclear spin qubit in silicon. Nature 496, 334–338 (2013).Article Google Scholar Download referencesAcknowledgementsWe acknowledge C. Pan and L. Han for the dilution refrigerator technique support, X. Deng and Y. Lu for their insightful discussions, Y. Deng and M. Gao for their help polishing the figures and L. W. Zhang for assistance with the references. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant numbers 92165210 to Y.H., 62174076 to Y.H., 11904157 to P.H. and 12275117 to T.X.), Quantum Science and Technology—National Science and Technology Major Project (numbers 2021ZD0302300 to Y.H. and 2024ZD0300400 to T.X.), Shenzhen Science and Technology Program (grant number KQTD20200820113010023 to Y.H.), Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation (grant numbers 2022A1515011348 to T.P. and 2022B1515020074 to T.X.).Author informationAuthor notesThese authors contributed equally: Chunhui Zhang, Chunhui Li, Zhen Tian.Authors and AffiliationsShenzhen Institute for Quantum Science and Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, ChinaChunhui Zhang, Chunhui Li, Yan Jiang, Feng Xu, Shihang Zhang, Hao Wang, Yu-Ning Zhang, Xuesong Bai, Baolong Zhao, Yi-Fei Zhang, Jiaze Liu, Kunrong Wu & Chao HuangInternational Quantum Academy, Shenzhen, ChinaChunhui Zhang, Chunhui Li, Zhen Tian, Yan Jiang, Feng Xu, Shihang Zhang, Hao Wang, Yu-Ning Zhang, Xuesong Bai, Baolong Zhao, Yi-Fei Zhang, Huan Shu, Jiaze Liu, Kunrong Wu, Chao Huang, Keji Shi, Mingchao Duan, Tao Xin, Peihao Huang, Tianluo Pan, Song Liu, Guanyong Wang, Guangchong Hu, Yu He & Dapeng YuShenzhen Branch, Hefei National Laboratory, Shenzhen, ChinaZhen Tian, Feng Xu, Yu-Ning Zhang, Xuesong Bai, Tianluo Pan, Song Liu, Guangchong Hu, Yu He & Dapeng YuAuthorsChunhui ZhangView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarChunhui LiView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarZhen TianView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarYan JiangView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarFeng XuView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarShihang ZhangView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarHao WangView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarYu-Ning ZhangView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarXuesong BaiView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarBaolong ZhaoView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarYi-Fei ZhangView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarHuan ShuView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarJiaze LiuView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarKunrong WuView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarChao HuangView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarKeji ShiView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarMingchao DuanView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarTao XinView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarPeihao HuangView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarTianluo PanView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarSong LiuView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarGuanyong WangView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarGuangchong HuView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarYu HeView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarDapeng YuView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarContributionsZ.T., H.W., Y.-N.Z., B.Z., H.S., J.L., K.W., K.S., M.D. and T.P. fabricated the device, under the supervision of G.W., Y.H., S.L. and D.Y. C.Z., C.L., Y.J., F.X., X.B., Y.-F.Z. and C.H. performed the experiments and analysed the data, under the supervision of G.H. and Y.H. S.Z. developed the tools to calculate the quantum dynamics for error detection and error correction, under the supervision of P.H. F.X. developed and applied computational tools to calculate gate benchmarking and tomography, under the supervision of T.X. C.L., C.Z., G.H. and Y.H. wrote the manuscript, with input from all co-authors. The manuscript was revised by all authors.Corresponding authorsCorrespondence to Guanyong Wang, Guangchong Hu, Yu He or Dapeng Yu.Ethics declarations Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Peer review Peer review information Nature Electronics thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Additional informationPublisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.Extended dataExtended Data Fig. 1 Rabi oscillation and Ramsey interferometry measurement for the electron.The Rabi oscillation and Ramsey interferometry for the electron are characterised with the nuclear spins initialised in \(| {\Downarrow \Downarrow \Downarrow \Uparrow \rangle}\) state. a, For Rabi measurement, a resonance ESR pulse with varying width is applied, and the extracted Rabi frequency is indicated. b, For Ramsey measurement, the detuning frequency is set at 100 kHz, and the integration time for each point is ∼128 s.Source dataExtended Data Fig. 2 Rabi oscillation and Ramsey interferometry measurement for four nuclear spin qubits.We characterise the dephasing time \({T}_{2}^{* }\) for each nuclear spin qubit using the Ramsey interferometry experiment. Here we sweep the evolution time between two π/2 pulses, and the oscillations are obtained by tuning the phase of the final π/2 pulse with τ at detunings of 7 kHz, 8 kHz, 5 kHz, and 50 Hz, respectively. The measurement sequence is repeated 40 times for each τ, and 10 repetitions are performed for each nuclear spin. The equivalent integration time for τ is around 3 min for the qubits N1N2N3, and 12 min for N4. The average data is fitted by the function \(P(t)=A{\mathrm{exp}}{(-t/{T}_{2}^{*})}^{2}\cos (2{\uppi} \Delta ft+\phi )+B\), where Δf is the frequency detuning and ϕ is the initial phase, yielding dephasing times of \({T}_{2,{{\rm{N}}}_{1}}^{* }=441\pm 11\,\upmu {\rm{s}},\) \({T}_{2,{{\rm{N}}}_{2}}^{* }=349\pm 8\,\upmu {\rm{s}},\) \({T}_{2,{{\rm{N}}}_{3}}^{* }=788\pm 23\,\upmu {\rm{s}},\) \({T}_{2,{{\rm{N}}}_{4}}^{* }=24.8\pm 0.8\,{\mathrm{ms}}\). The uncertainties for \({T}_{2}^{* }\) are derived by the bootstrap resampling and are denoted at the 1σ confidence level. For N4, the long dephasing time is likely due to the small hyperfine interaction of A4 = 226.0 kHz. a, Rabi oscillation measurement results for each nucleus, performed using RF powers matching those applied in the quantum circuits of the main experiments. b, Ramsey interferometry measurement results for each nucleus.Source dataExtended Data Fig. 3 Single-qubit gate Randomised Benchmarking.We characterise the single-qubit gate fidelity for four nuclear spins N1 ~ N4 by performing a Randomised Benchmarking (RB) experiment. First, nuclear spins are initialised to the \(| {\Downarrow \Downarrow \Downarrow \Uparrow \Uparrow \Uparrow \rangle}\) state. For each qubit we apply a sequence of n Clifford gates which are randomly chosen from the single-qubit Clifford group, followed by a final recovery gate to return the target qubit to its initial state. Each sequence of length n is repeated 100 times, and the results are averaged over 9 randomised sequences. Data are presented as mean ± s.d. We measure the recovery probability as a function of the number of Clifford gates, n, following the decay model \({P}_{\Downarrow }(n)=A{p}_\mathrm{C}^{n}+B\), where A and B are constants that account for the state preparation and measurement (SPAM) errors. The depolarizing parameter pC is related to the average Clifford gate fidelity FC = (1 + pC)/2. RB measurements performed on the nuclear spin qubits N1 ~ N4 within their respective single-qubit subspaces yield Clifford gate fidelities of 99.37 ± 0.03%, 99.73 ± 0.02%, 99.84 ± 0.01%, and 99.33 ± 0.04%, respectively. The fidelity uncertainties are derived by the bootstrap resampling and denoted at the 1σ confidence level. a, The experimental circuit for single-qubit randomised benchmarking. All 24 single-qubit Clifford gates are generated using Xπ/2 and virtual Zπ/2 gates. b, Single-qubit randomised benchmarking measurement results for four nuclear spins N1 ~ N4.Source dataExtended Data Fig. 4 Two-qubit Randomised Benchmarking.To characterise the fidelity of the CZ gate between nuclear spins N1 ~ N4, we employ interleaved randomised benchmarking (IRB). The nuclear spins are initialised to the \(|{\Downarrow \Downarrow \Downarrow \Uparrow \Uparrow \Uparrow\rangle}\) state before executing the IRB sequence. First, we perform a standard two-qubit RB experiment as a reference. Each RB sequence of length n consists of n Clifford gates randomly selected from the two-qubit Clifford group, with each Clifford gate composed by an average of 4.99 π/2 pulses and 1.55 CZ gates. A recovery gate at the end of each RB sequence ensures that the two target qubits return to \(| {\Downarrow \Downarrow \rangle}\) state. We randomly generate RB sequences from the Clifford group for each experiment, measure each sequence 200 times and average all results. The six IRB experiments use 9, 15, 28, 15, 22, and 21 sequences, respectively. By fitting the probability of \(| {\Downarrow \Downarrow \rangle}\) by \({P}_{\Downarrow \Downarrow }(n)=A{p}_{\rm{ref}}^{n}+B\), we extract the reference depolarizing parameter pref. Subsequently, we interleave the CZ gate after each Clifford gate in the reference RB sequence, update the recovery gate, and then perform the new RB sequence to extract the depolarizing parameter pCZ. By comparing the decay curves of the reference and interleaved sequences, the fidelity of CZ gate is extracted as FCZ = (1 + 3pCZpref)/4. We characterise the two-qubit CZ gate for all pairs among the four nuclear spins, and obtain gate fidelities of 99.65 ± 1.06%, 99.20 ± 0.69%, 95.11 ± 1.41%, 99.62 ± 1.05%, 96.25 ± 0.87% and 96.73 ± 0.87%, respectively. The fidelity uncertainties are derived by the bootstrap resampling and are denoted at the 1σ confidence level. a, The experimental circuit for two-qubit randomised benchmarking. \({{{X}}}_{\mathrm\pi /2}^{1}{{{X}}}_{\mathrm\pi /2}^{2}\), virtual \({Z}_{\mathrm{\pi} /2}^{1}\), virtual \({Z}_{\mathrm{\pi} /2}^{2}\) and CZ gate are chosen as the primitives to generate two-qubit Clifford gates. b, Two-qubit Randomised Benchmarking measurement results for all pairs among the four nuclear spins. The error bars represent one standard deviation calculated using the bootstrapping method. c, Summary of quantum gate infidelities in the four-nuclear-spin system. The values inside the circles denote the averaged infidelity of single-qubit Clifford gates for the corresponding nuclear spins, and the values between the circles represent the infidelity of the CZ gates between them.Source dataExtended Data Fig. 5 Bell states between each pair of the nuclear spins.a-f, the tomography of Bell state \(| {\Phi }^{+}\rangle\) for nuclear spin pairs N1N2, N1N3, N1N4, N2N3, N2N4, and N3N4, with measured Bell state fidelities of \({F}_{| {\Phi }^{+}\rangle ,12}=95.2\pm 1.2 \% ,\)\(\,{F}_{| {\Phi }^{+}\rangle ,13}=96.3\pm 1.1 \% ,\)\(\,{F}_{| {\Phi }^{+}\rangle ,14}=91.6\pm 1.6 \% ,\)\(\,{F}_{| {\Phi }^{+}\rangle ,23}=95.2\pm 1.0 \% ,\)\(\,{F}_{| {\Phi }^{+}\rangle ,24}=91.7\pm 1.5 \%\), and \({F}_{| {\Phi }^{+}\rangle ,34}=90.3\pm 1.2 \%\).Source dataExtended Data Fig. 6 Bell state error correction from all the error subspaces.a, Experimental circuit used to recover \(| {\Phi }^{+}\rangle\) from the four error subspaces. This is realised by preparing \(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(| {\Downarrow \Downarrow \rangle} +| {\Downarrow \Uparrow \rangle} )=\frac{1}{2}(| {\Phi }^{+}\rangle +| {\Phi }^{-}\rangle +| {\Psi }^{+}\rangle +| {\Psi }^{-}\rangle )\), which is an equal superposition of the four Bell states. Quantum state tomography is then performed on the data qubits corresponding to different error syndromes, where nearly equal probabilities are observed for the four possible measurement outcomes of the syndromes: {0,0}, {0,1}, {1,0}, and {1,1}. The data qubits are mapped to corresponding Bell state with fidelities of \({F}_{| {\Phi }^{+}\rangle }=81.6\pm 2.6 \% ,{F}_{| {\Psi }^{+}\rangle }=80.6\pm 2.7 \% ,{F}_{| {\Phi }^{-}\rangle }=75.7\pm 2.8 \%\), and \({F}_{| {\Psi }^{-}\rangle }=80.4\pm 2.9 \%\), respectively, as illustrated in b-e. Based on the error syndromes, the error state ρerror can be corrected by applying a corresponding single-qubit operation U through ρcorrect = UρerrorU† by postprocessing. As shown in f, \(| {\Phi }^{+}\rangle\) is finally recovered with a fidelity of \({F}_{| {\Phi }^{+}\rangle }=79.0\pm 1.4 \%\).Source dataExtended Data Fig. 7 Nuclear spin lifetime.a, Nuclear spin N1 lifetime measurement, which is realised by toggling the two ESR frequencies corresponding to \(| {\Uparrow \rangle}\) and \(| {\Downarrow} \rangle\) of N1, followed by electron spin single-shot measurement. This procedure essentially constitutes a nuclear spin quantum non-demolition measurement. Each data point represents the electron spin-up fraction difference Δf↑, comparing \(| {\Uparrow \rangle}\) and \(| {\Downarrow \rangle}\). Each spin-up fraction is averaged over 40 single-shot measurements and conducted over ~ 80 ms. The red dotted line displays the discrimination threshold for determining whether the nuclear is in the \(| {\Uparrow \rangle}\) or \(| {\Downarrow \rangle}\). b, The quantum jumps58 are observed throughout the measurement, with the time resolution limited by the electron spin measurement speed. In the histogram of integrated signal versus Δf↑, the two major peaks fitted by two Gaussian curves correspond to the two nuclear spin states. The resulting error rate for nuclear spin discrimination is drawn in c, giving an error rate less than 0.1% for both \(| {\Uparrow \rangle}\) and \(| {\Downarrow \rangle}\) states assertions, with a discrimination threshold around -0.2. d, The lifetimes for \(| {\Uparrow \rangle}\) and \(| {\Downarrow \rangle}\) of N1 are measured over 6 hours, which is fitted using P(t) = Aexp(− t/T1) + B, yielding \({T}_{| \Uparrow \rangle }^{\rm{N}_{1}} \sim 174\,\rm{s}\) and \({T}_{| \Downarrow \rangle }^{\rm{N}_{1}} \sim 300\,\rm{s}\). The lifetimes of nuclear spins N2 and N3 are characterised similarly, giving \({T}_{| \Uparrow \rangle }^{\rm{N}_{2}} \sim 100\,\rm{s}\) and \({T}_{| \Downarrow \rangle }^{\rm{N}_{2}} \sim 196\,\rm{s}\), \({T}_{| \Uparrow \rangle }^{\rm{N}_{3}} \sim 153\,\rm{s}\) and \({T}_{| \Downarrow \rangle }^{\rm{N}_{3}} \sim 144\,\rm{s}\), and the nuclear spin flips are mostly caused by the ionization process during electron spin readout8.Source dataSupplementary informationSupplementary InformationSupplementary Sections 1–16, Figs. 1–19 and Tables 1–3.Source dataSource Data Fig. 1Source data for Fig. 1.Source Data Fig. 2Source data for Fig. 2.Source Data Fig. 3Source data for Fig. 3.Source Data Fig. 4Source data for Fig. 4.Source Data Extended Data Fig. 1Source data for Extended Data Fig. 1.Source Data Extended Data Fig. 2Source data for Extended Data Fig. 2.Source Data Extended Data Fig. 3Source data for Extended Data Fig. 3.Source Data Extended Data Fig. 4Source data for Extended Data Fig. 4.Source Data Extended Data Fig. 5Source data for Extended Data Fig. 5.Source Data Extended Data Fig. 6Source data for Extended Data Fig. 6.Source Data Extended Data Fig. 7Source data for Extended Data Fig. 7.Rights and permissionsSpringer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.Reprints and permissionsAbout this articleCite this articleZhang, C., Li, C., Tian, Z. et al. Quantum error detection in a silicon quantum processor. Nat Electron (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41928-025-01557-1Download citationReceived: 05 May 2025Accepted: 17 December 2025Published: 26 January 2026Version of record: 26 January 2026DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41928-025-01557-1Share this articleAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable linkSorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.