Table 4 Characterization of iSWAP, \(\sqrt{i\text {SWAP}}\), and CNOT gates showing QPT fidelities (\(\mathcal {F}_p\)) and output state populations (\(P_{00}\)) for the \(|00\rangle\) input. The \(\sqrt{i\text {SWAP}}\) gate shows the largest hardware fidelity drop (\(\Delta \mathcal {F}_p = 10.37\%\)), while the CNOT gate exhibits the smallest (\(4.87\%\)). All three gates show comparable \(P_{00}\) degradation on hardware (\(\sim 6.5-7.6\%\)).
From: Benchmarking engineered exchange interactions on NISQ hardware
Gate | Process fidelity \(\mathcal {F}_p\) | \(\Delta \mathcal {F}_p\) | State preparation \(P_{00}\) | \(\Delta P_{00}\) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Simulator (%) | Hardware (%) | (HW Drop) (%) | Simulator (%) | Hardware (%) | (HW Drop) (%) | |
iSWAP (This study) | 97.32 | 89.72 | 7.60 | 100.00 | 93.53 | 6.47 |
\(\sqrt{i\text {SWAP}}\) (This study) | 98.02 | 87.65 | 10.37 | 100.00 | 92.44 | 7.56 |
CNOTÂ 55 | 97.89 | 93.02 | 4.87 | 100.00 | 92.40 | 7.60 |
