arXiv subjects

Nitay Mayo

Publications and source records attributed to Nitay Mayo.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

How Far Can You Do Nothing On a Quantum Computer?

We present a route-resolved comparative assessment of Rigetti's Cepheus-1-108Q and IBM Heron-r2 processors using the established 'do-nothing' state-transfer protocol. Rather than proposing a new protocol, we use this deterministic, low-complexity task as a high-resolution spatial probe. For each evaluated initial qubit, we report two complementary quantities: the largest tested radius within which every evaluated shortest route satisfies the operational success rule, and the longest successful route identified within the evaluated route family. To achieve this, we address a deceptively simple yet foundational question: ``How far can you do-nothing on a quantum computer?'' Operationally, this do-nothing protocol serves as a fundamental state transfer protocol: we prepare an initial quantum state, route it across the physical qubits using SWAP gates, and measure the final state fidelity against the well-established classical fidelity limit for single-qubit state transfer. While this trivial state-transfer protocol serves as the most intuitive baseline, actively preserving a quantum state across a physical lattice proves to be a non-trivial task that exposes the information to cumulative relaxation, dephasing, and environmental cross-talk. In the highlighted IBM QPU case, we identify an isotropic radius of 10 and a successful path of swap distance 27, whereas the highlighted Rigetti Cepheus case exhibits an isotropic radius of 1 but selected above-threshold routes reaching swap distance 8. These results reveal a sharp distinction between uniform spatial reliability and best-route performance. The presented quantities are empirical and conditional on the evaluated route families, finite-shot decision rule, calibration state, and execution time; they are not architecture-wide constants.

quant-ph↗

arXiv2026

Benchmarking Quantum Computers via Protocols, Comparing Superconducting and Ion-Trap Quantum Technology

Both Superconducting and Ion-Trap are leading quantum architectures common in the current landscape of the quantum computing field, each with distinct characteristics and operational constraints. Understanding and measuring the underlying \underline{quantumness} of these devices is essential for assessing their readiness for practical applications and guiding future progress and research. Building on earlier work (Meirom, Mor and Weinstein Arxiv 2505.12441), we utilize a benchmarking strategy applicable for comparing these two architectures by measuring "quantumness" directly on optimal sub-chips. Distinct from existing metrics, our approach employs rigorous binary fidelity thresholds derived from the classical limits of state transfer. This enables us to definitively establish quantum advantage of a designated sub-region. Here we apply this quality assurance methodology to platforms from both technologies. This comparison provides a protocol-based evaluation of quantumness advantage, revealing not only the strengths and weaknesses of each tested chip and its sub-chips but also offering a common language for their assessment. By abstracting away technical differences in the final result, we demonstrate a benchmarking strategy that bridges the gap between disparate quantum-circuit technologies, enabling fair performance comparisons and establishing a critical foundation for evaluating future claims of quantum advantage. This work was made possible by policies of two companies who enable independent and objective assessment on their quantum computers and sub-chips. In the name of science, we encourage other companies to emulate the independent qubit availability and the fair pricing which allow researchers to preform such assessments.

quant-ph↗

arXiv2026

Benchmarking Quantum Computers via Protocols, Comparing IBM's Heron vs IBM's Eagle

As quantum computing hardware rapidly advances, objectively evaluating the capabilities and error rates of new processors remains a critical challenge for the field. A clear and realistic understanding of current quantum performance is essential for guiding research priorities and driving meaningful progress. In this work, we apply and extend a protocol-based benchmarking methodology (Meirom, Mor, Weinstein Arxiv 2505.12441) that utilizes well-defined \underline{quantumness} thresholds. By evaluating performance at protocol level rather than the gate level, this approach provides a transparent and intuitive assessment of whether specific quantum processors, or isolated sub-chips within them, can demonstrate a practical quantum advantage. To illustrate the utility of this method, we compare two generations of IBM quantum computers: the older Eagle architecture and the newer Heron architecture. Our findings reveal the genuine operational strengths and limitations of these devices, demonstrating substantial performance improvements in the newer Heron generation. This work was made possible by IBM Quantum policies that enable independent and objective assessment of its quantum computers and sub-chips. We strongly encourage other companies to emulate the independent qubit availability and the fair pricing that allow researchers to perform such assessments.

quant-ph↗