pith. sign in

arxiv: 2508.19160 · v2 · submitted 2025-08-26 · 🪐 quant-ph · cs.AR· cs.DC· cs.ET

Architecting Distributed Quantum Computers: Design Insights from Resource Estimation

Dmitry Filippov , Peter Yang , Prakash Murali This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 21:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cs.ARcs.DCcs.ET
keywords distributed quantum computinglattice surgeryresource estimationfault-tolerant quantum computationsuperconducting qubitsquantum architecture designmodular quantum operationsscalability analysis
0
0 comments X

The pith

Resource estimation identifies concrete hardware configurations that make a distributed lattice-surgery architecture feasible for practical quantum algorithms.

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

The paper proposes a distributed quantum computing architecture that uses lattice surgery to connect separate superconducting-qubit nodes and support modular operations across them. It builds a tailored resource-estimation tool that models full algorithm execution under varying node sizes, entanglement rates, and distillation protocols. Benchmarking across eight applications and thousands of hardware setups reveals that architecture choices guided by these estimates can keep resource demands within practical bounds. This approach highlights which hardware parameters most limit scalability and which combinations avoid those limits.

Core claim

By extending lattice surgery to modular and distributed operations between separate nodes, the authors construct an end-to-end resource model that evaluates realistic quantum algorithms on a distributed superconducting-qubit platform. Their analysis shows that resource estimation driven design is essential for scalability and that specific combinations of node size, inter-node entanglement generation rate, and distillation protocol yield feasible resource requirements for the tested applications.

What carries the argument

A resource-estimation framework that models distributed lattice-surgery operations, inter-node entanglement generation, and distillation protocols to compute total qubit count, gate count, and runtime for full algorithms across hardware configurations.

If this is right

  • Concrete node sizes and entanglement rates exist that keep total resources manageable for the eight benchmarked algorithms.
  • Hardware research should prioritize improvements in inter-node entanglement generation and distillation fidelity to reach the viable configurations.
  • System organization decisions, such as how to partition algorithms across nodes, directly determine whether resource demands stay feasible.
  • Resource estimation applied early in architecture design can eliminate paths that would otherwise exceed fabrication or cooling limits.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same estimation approach could rank research priorities among competing ways to generate inter-node entanglement.
  • Extending the model to include classical control latency would show how distributed quantum systems interact with real-time feedback loops.
  • Similar resource studies on other qubit platforms could reveal whether the lattice-surgery distribution strategy generalizes beyond superconducting devices.

Load-bearing premise

Lattice surgery can be extended to modular distributed operations between separate nodes without losing the assumed inter-node entanglement rates or distillation performance.

What would settle it

An experimental measurement showing that the entanglement generation rate between nodes falls below the threshold required by the distillation protocols used in the feasible configurations, or that modular lattice-surgery operations incur overheads that exceed the modeled resource budgets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19160 by Dmitry Filippov, Peter Yang, Prakash Murali.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: System architecture for the distributed quantum computer and our tool and modelling contributions high￾lighted in green. At the bottom, the grey box shows the overall system architecture consisting of nodes and the phys￾ical quantum network (mechanism for generating shared entanglement between nodes). The dashed box shows the architecture of a single node, with physical qubit, distillation and instruction … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distributed quantum supercomputer with 3 nodes. Compute nodes store logical data qubits (grey) in surface code tiles arranged inside a fast block layout [37]; they are surrounded by ancilla qubits (white) which facilitate opera￾tions such as MQPM. Nodes are connected by entanglement generation devices (teal) which generate noisy Bell pairs which are then distilled by Entanglement Distillation (blue) blocks… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Our remote implementation of MQPR. Here, time flows from bottom up and single lines represent qubit "wires". LHS is the MQPR with angle 𝜋/8 and Pauli string 𝑃 = 𝑃1𝑃2...𝑃𝑛 performed on the monolithic device as described in [37]. We assume that data qubits represented by the Pauli string 𝑃𝑖 all reside on the same node 𝑁𝑖 , separated by dotted line in the diagram. RHS represents the operation performed on a d… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effects of the node size on the spacetime volume overhead of the distributed computation compared to the monolithic architecture, for 2 different error rates. In every configuration the raw Bell state error rate is 5% and the entanglement rate is 10𝑀𝐻𝑧. The data shows that in the case of 10−4 error rate node sizing of 40-60K qubits is ideal across applications and for 10−3 error rate node sizing of 70-90k … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of entanglement generation rate on spacetime overhead of distributed computation compared to monolithic, for 4 different (physical error rate, node size, Bell state infidelity) hardware configurations. Bell state infidelity is 5% for all graphs except bottom right, for which infidelity is 1%. this, entanglement distillation occupies a higher proportion of the node, leaving less space for compute qub… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In the emerging field of Fault Tolerant Quantum Computation (FTQC), resource estimation is an important tool for quantitatively comparing prospective architectures, identifying hardware bottlenecks and informing which research paths are most valuable. Despite a recent increase in attention on FTQC, there is currently a lack of resource estimation research for architectures that can realistically offer quantum advantage. In particular, current modelling efforts focus on monolithic quantum computers where all qubits reside on a single device. Constraints on fabrication yield, wiring density, and cooling power make monolithic devices unlikely to scale to fault-tolerant sizes in the foreseeable future. Distributed quantum supercomputers offer a path to overcome these limitations. We propose a prospective distributed quantum computing architecture based on lattice surgery with support for modular and distributed operations, with a focus on superconducting qubits. We develop a resource-estimation framework and software tool tailored to distributed FTQC, enabling end-to-end analysis of practical quantum algorithms on our proposed architecture with various hardware configurations, spanning different node sizes, inter-node entanglement generation rates and distillation protocols. Our extensive benchmarking across eight applications and thousands of hardware configurations, shows that resource estimation driven architecture design is crucial for scalability. We provide concrete design configurations that have feasible resource requirements, recommendations for hardware design and system organization. More broadly, our work provides a rigorous methodology for architectural pathfinding, capable of informing system designs and guiding future research priorities.

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 paper proposes a distributed quantum computing architecture based on lattice surgery tailored to superconducting qubits, addressing scalability limits of monolithic devices due to fabrication, wiring, and cooling constraints. It introduces a resource-estimation framework and software tool that analyzes end-to-end resource requirements for eight practical quantum algorithms across thousands of hardware configurations, varying node sizes, inter-node entanglement generation rates, and distillation protocols. Benchmarking identifies concrete feasible design configurations and offers hardware design recommendations, arguing that resource estimation is essential for scalable FTQC architecture.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions are validated, the work provides a rigorous, extensible methodology for architectural pathfinding in distributed FTQC. By quantifying trade-offs across applications and configurations, it supplies actionable guidance on node sizing and entanglement rates that could prioritize experimental efforts toward quantum advantage, while highlighting the value of open resource-estimation tools for the community.

major comments (2)
  1. [Architecture and methods sections] Architecture and methods sections: The extension of lattice surgery to modular distributed operations across nodes treats inter-node Bell-pair generation rates and distillation performance as free input parameters rather than deriving them from superconducting-qubit device physics (e.g., link fidelity, latency, or additional error-correction overhead). This assumption is load-bearing for the central feasibility claims, because any degradation in real inter-node links would alter the reported resource bounds for the eight applications.
  2. [Benchmarking and results sections] Benchmarking and results sections: The extensive sweeps over node sizes, rates, and protocols identify feasible configurations, yet the manuscript provides no sensitivity analysis or error propagation on how uncertainties in the free parameters propagate to the final resource estimates or to the conclusion that specific designs are viable.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions and legends should explicitly state the exact parameter ranges and fixed values used in each sweep to improve reproducibility.
  2. [Software tool] The software tool description would benefit from a brief pseudocode or API example showing how a user specifies a new application and hardware configuration.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and insightful comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below and have incorporated revisions to improve the paper's robustness and clarity.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Architecture and methods sections] The extension of lattice surgery to modular distributed operations across nodes treats inter-node Bell-pair generation rates and distillation performance as free input parameters rather than deriving them from superconducting-qubit device physics (e.g., link fidelity, latency, or additional error-correction overhead). This assumption is load-bearing for the central feasibility claims, because any degradation in real inter-node links would alter the reported resource bounds for the eight applications.

    Authors: We agree that parameterizing the inter-node entanglement generation rates and distillation protocols as free inputs is a key modeling choice in our framework. This approach enables the exploration of thousands of hardware configurations and provides a general methodology applicable to various physical implementations. Deriving these parameters directly from specific superconducting qubit device physics would necessitate detailed assumptions about future hardware performance and additional error sources, which falls beyond the scope of this work focused on architectural insights. To address this, we will revise the Architecture and Methods sections to include a more explicit discussion on how experimental parameters such as link fidelity and latency can be mapped to the input rates used in our model, supported by references to recent experimental demonstrations of inter-node entanglement in superconducting systems. This will help readers better contextualize the feasibility claims. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Benchmarking and results sections] The extensive sweeps over node sizes, rates, and protocols identify feasible configurations, yet the manuscript provides no sensitivity analysis or error propagation on how uncertainties in the free parameters propagate to the final resource estimates or to the conclusion that specific designs are viable.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation regarding the lack of sensitivity analysis. Our current benchmarking involves extensive parameter sweeps to delineate feasible regions, but we recognize that quantifying the propagation of uncertainties would strengthen the conclusions. In the revised version, we will add a dedicated subsection in the Benchmarking and Results sections that performs a sensitivity analysis. This will include examining the impact of variations in key parameters like entanglement generation rates on the resource estimates for the eight applications, using techniques such as partial derivative analysis or sampling methods to assess robustness. We believe this addition will provide a more complete picture of the viable design space. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Resource estimation framework applies established lattice-surgery models to distributed parameters treated as independent inputs

full rationale

The paper's core output consists of resource counts for eight applications across varied hardware configurations (node sizes, entanglement rates, distillation protocols). These counts are computed from the input parameters via the estimation framework rather than being fitted to or defined in terms of the same outputs; the framework varies the inputs explicitly to explore feasibility bounds. No derivation step reduces a reported feasible configuration to a quantity obtained by fitting or self-definition from the target result itself. Lattice-surgery primitives are invoked as prior art without the paper claiming to derive their performance from the present resource numbers. The analysis therefore remains self-contained against external quantum-algorithm resource benchmarks and does not exhibit any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on the assumption that lattice surgery extends to distributed modular operations and that the chosen hardware parameters (node size, entanglement rate, distillation protocol) are representative of feasible superconducting hardware.

free parameters (3)
  • node sizes
    Multiple node sizes are varied in the benchmarking; exact values are chosen to explore the design space.
  • inter-node entanglement generation rates
    Rates are swept across configurations without independent derivation from first principles.
  • distillation protocols
    Different protocols are selected and compared as part of the hardware configuration space.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Lattice surgery supports modular and distributed operations between separate superconducting-qubit nodes at the assumed entanglement rates.
    This premise underpins the entire proposed architecture and resource model.
invented entities (1)
  • Distributed quantum supercomputer architecture based on lattice surgery no independent evidence
    purpose: To overcome fabrication yield, wiring density, and cooling limits of monolithic devices.
    New architectural proposal introduced in the paper; no independent experimental evidence supplied in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5776 in / 1496 out tokens · 53690 ms · 2026-05-18T21:11:27.587964+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. The Pinnacle Architecture: Reducing the cost of breaking RSA-2048 to 100 000 physical qubits using quantum LDPC codes

    quant-ph 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Pinnacle Architecture using QLDPC codes reduces physical qubits needed to factor RSA-2048 to under 100,000 at 10^{-3} error rate.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    [n. d.]. Atom Computing: AC1000.https://atom-computing.com/ ac1000/. Accessed: 2025-08-14

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    [n. d.]. Azure Quantum Resource Estimator.https://github.com/ microsoft/Quantum/tree/main/samples/azure-quantum. Accessed: 2025-08-14

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    [n. d.]. BenchQ.https://github.com/zapatacomputing/benchq. Ac- cessed: 2025-08-14

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    [n. d.]. IBM Quantum Roadmap.https://www.ibm.com/quantum/blog/ quantum-roadmap-2033. Accessed: 2025-08-14

    work page 2033

  5. [5]

    [n. d.]. NQCC Technology Roadmap.https://www.nqcc.ac.uk/ technology-and-research/technology-roadmap/. Accessed: 2025- 08-14

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    2025.https://defencescienceinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/ 07/DARPA-SN-25-98.pdf

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Abanin, Laleh Aghababaie-Beni, Igor Aleiner, Trond I

    Rajeev Acharya, Dmitry A. Abanin, Laleh Aghababaie-Beni, Igor Aleiner, Trond I. Andersen, Markus Ansmann, Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Abraham Asfaw, Nikita Astrakhantsev, Juan Atalaya, Ryan Bab- bush, Dave Bacon, Brian Ballard, Joseph C. Bardin, Johannes Bausch, Andreas Bengtsson, Alexander Bilmes, Sam Blackwell, Sergio Boixo, Gina Bortoli, Alexandre Bourass...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08449-y 2024

  8. [8]

    Pablo Andres-Martinez, Tim Forrer, Daniel Mills, Jun-Yi Wu, Luciana Henaut, Kentaro Yamamoto, Mio Murao, and Ross Duncan. 2024. Dis- tributing circuits over heterogeneous, modular quantum computing network architectures.Quantum Science and Technology9, 4 (Aug. 2024), 045021. doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ad6734

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ad6734 2024

  9. [9]

    Pablo Andrés-Martínez and Chris Heunen. 2019. Automated distribu- tion of quantum circuits via hypergraph partitioning.Physical Review A100, 3 (Sept. 2019). doi:10.1103/physreva.100.032308

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.100.032308 2019

  10. [10]

    Nature , author=

    Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C. Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fernando G. S. L. Bran- dao, David A. Buell, Brian Burkett, Yu Chen, Zijun Chen, Ben Chiaro, Roberto Collins, William Courtney, Andrew Dunsworth, Edward Farhi, Brooks Foxen, Austin Fowler, Craig Gidney, Marissa Giustina, Rob Graff, Keith Guerin, ...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5 2019

  11. [11]

    Hans Aschauer. 2005. Quantum communication in noisy environ- ments.http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:19-35882

    work page 2005

  12. [12]

    14 Architecting Distributed Quantum Computers: Design Insights from Resource Estimation

    Ryan Babbush, Craig Gidney, Dominic W Berry, Nathan Wiebe, Jar- rod McClean, Alexandru Paler, Austin Fowler, and Hartmut Neven. 14 Architecting Distributed Quantum Computers: Design Insights from Resource Estimation

    work page

  13. [13]

    Encoding electronic spectra in quantum circuits with linear T complexity.Physical Review X8, 4 (2018), 041015

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    Mixed-state entanglement and quan tum error correction

    Charles H. Bennett, David P. DiVincenzo, John A. Smolin, and William K. Wootters. 1996. Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction.Physical Review A54, 5 (Nov. 1996), 3824–3851. doi:10.1103/physreva.54.3824

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.54.3824 1996

  15. [15]

    Ilya Besedin, Michael Kerschbaum, Jonathan Knoll, Ian Hesner, Lukas Bödeker, Luis Colmenarez, Luca Hofele, Nathan Lacroix, Christoph Hellings, François Swiadek, Alexander Flasby, Mohsen Bahrami Panah, Dante Colao Zanuz, Markus Müller, and Andreas Wallraff. 2025. Real- izing Lattice Surgery on Two Distance-Three Repetition Codes with Superconducting Qubits...

    work page arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Cost of universality: A comparative study of the overhead of state distillation and code switching with color codes,

    Michael E. Beverland, Aleksander Kubica, and Krysta M. Svore. 2021. Cost of Universality: A Comparative Study of the Overhead of State Distillation and Code Switching with Color Codes.PRX Quantum2, 2 (June 2021). doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.020341

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.020341 2021

  17. [17]

    Michael E Beverland, Prakash Murali, Matthias Troyer, Krysta M Svore, Torsten Hoefler, Vadym Kliuchnikov, Guang Hao Low, Mathias Soeken, Aarthi Sundaram, and Alexander Vaschillo. 2022. Assess- ing requirements to scale to practical quantum advantage. (2022). arXiv:2211.07629 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Evered, Alexandra A

    Dolev Bluvstein, Simon J. Evered, Alexandra A. Geim, Sophie H. Li, Hengyun Zhou, Tom Manovitz, Sepehr Ebadi, Madelyn Cain, Marcin Kalinowski, Dominik Hangleiter, J. Pablo Bonilla Ataides, Nishad Maskara, Iris Cong, Xun Gao, Pedro Sales Rodriguez, Thomas Karolyshyn, Giulia Semeghini, Michael J. Gullans, Markus Greiner, Vladan Vuletić, and Mikhail D. Lukin....

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06927-3 2024

  19. [19]

    Ilkwon Byun, Junpyo Kim, Dongmoon Min, Ikki Nagaoka, Kosuke Fukumitsu, Iori Ishikawa, Teruo Tanimoto, Masamitsu Tanaka, Koji Inoue, and Jangwoo Kim. 2022. XQsim: modeling cross-technology control processors for 10+ K qubit quantum computers. InProceedings of the 49th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture. 366–382

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Andrew M Childs, Dmitri Maslov, Yunseong Nam, Neil J Ross, and Yuan Su. 2018. Toward the first quantum simulation with quantum speedup.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115, 38 (2018), 9456–9461

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    Continuous operation of a co- herent 3,000-qubit system

    Neng-Chun Chiu, Elias C. Trapp, Jinen Guo, Mohamed H. Abobeih, Luke M. Stewart, Simon Hollerith, Pavel Stroganov, Marcin Kalinowski, Alexandra A. Geim, Simon J. Evered, Sophie H. Li, Lisa M. Peters, Dolev Bluvstein, Tout T. Wang, Markus Greiner, Vladan Vuletić, and Mikhail D. Lukin. 2025. Continuous operation of a coherent 3,000- qubit system. arXiv:arXiv...

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Chou, Jacob Z

    Kevin S. Chou, Jacob Z. Blumoff, Christopher S. Wang, Philip C. Rein- hold, Christopher J. Axline, Yvonne Y. Gao, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, Liang Jiang, and R. J. Schoelkopf. 2018. Deterministic teleportation of a quantum gate between two logical qubits.Nature561, 7723 (01 Sep 2018), 368–373. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0470-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0470-y 2018

  23. [23]

    Alexander Cowtan, Silas Dilkes, Ross Duncan, Will Simmons, and Seyon Sivarajah. 2020. Phase Gadget Synthesis for Shallow Circuits. Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science318 (May 2020), 213–228. doi:10.4204/eptcs.318.13

    work page doi:10.4204/eptcs.318.13 2020

  24. [24]

    Daniele Cuomo, Marcello Caleffi, Kevin Krsulich, Filippo Tramonto, Gabriele Agliardi, Enrico Prati, and Angela Sara Cacciapuoti. 2023. Optimized Compiler for Distributed Quantum Computing.ACM Trans- actions on Quantum Computing4, 2 (Feb. 2023), 1–29. doi:10.1145/ 3579367

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    W Dür and H J Briegel. 2007. Entanglement purification and quantum error correction.Reports on Progress in Physics70, 8 (2007), 1381–1424. doi:10.1088/0034-4885/70/8/r03

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/70/8/r03 2007

  26. [26]

    Optimal local implementation of nonlocal quantum gates

    J. Eisert, K. Jacobs, P. Papadopoulos, and M. B. Plenio. 2000. Optimal local implementation of nonlocal quantum gates.Physical Review A 62, 5 (Oct. 2000). doi:10.1103/physreva.62.052317

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.62.052317 2000

  27. [27]

    Ekert and C

    A. Ekert and C. Macchiavello. 1996. Error Correction in Quantum Communication. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.QUANT-PH/9602022

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/9602022 1996

  28. [28]

    Tianfeng Feng, Jue Xu, Wenjun Yu, Zekun Ye, Penghui Yao, and Qi Zhao. 2024. Distributed Quantum Simulation. doi:10.48550/ARXIV. 2411.02881

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Austin G Fowler and Craig Gidney. 2018. Low overhead quantum com- putation using lattice surgery. (Aug. 2018). arXiv:1808.06709 [quant- ph]

    work page arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

    Craig Gidney and Martin Ekerå. 2021. How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits.Quantum5 (2021), 433

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    Expressing and analyzing quantum algorithms with qualtran,

    Matthew P. Harrigan, Tanuj Khattar, Charles Yuan, Anurudh Peduri, Noureldin Yosri, Fionn D. Malone, Ryan Babbush, and Nicholas C. Rubin. 2024. Expressing and Analyzing Quantum Algorithms with Qualtran. arXiv:2409.04643 [quant-ph] doi:10.48550/arXiv.2409.04643

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.04643 2024

  32. [32]

    Naomichi Hatano and Masuo Suzuki. 2005. Finding exponential prod- uct formulas of higher orders. InQuantum annealing and other opti- mization methods. Springer, 37–68

    work page 2005

  33. [33]

    Laser-annealing Josephson junctions for yielding scaled-up superconducting quantum processors,

    Jared B. Hertzberg, Eric J. Zhang, Sami Rosenblatt, Easwar Mage- san, John A. Smolin, Jeng-Bang Yau, Vivekananda P. Adiga, Martin Sandberg, Markus Brink, Jerry M. Chow, and Jason S. Orcutt. 2021. Laser-annealing Josephson junctions for yielding scaled-up supercon- ducting quantum processors.npj Quantum Information7, 1 (19 Aug 2021), 129. doi:10.1038/s4153...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-021-00464-5 2021

  34. [34]

    Thomas Häner, Martin Roetteler, and Krysta M. Svore. 2016. Factoring using 2n+2 qubits with Toffoli based modular multiplication. Quan- tum Information and Computation, Vol. 17, No. 7 & 8 (2017). (2016). arXiv:arXiv:1611.07995

    work page Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  35. [35]

    Afzal, M

    Photonic Inc, :, Francis Afzal, Mohsen Akhlaghi, Stefanie J. Beale, Olinka Bedroya, Kristin Bell, Laurent Bergeron, Kent Bonsma-Fisher, Polina Bychkova, Zachary M. E. Chaisson, Camille Chartrand, Chloe Clear, Adam Darcie, Adam DeAbreu, Colby DeLisle, Lesley A. Dun- can, Chad Dundas Smith, John Dunn, Amir Ebrahimi, Nathan Evetts, Daker Fernandes Pinheiro, ...

    work page arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Junpyo Kim, Dongmoon Min, Jungmin Cho, Hyeonseong Jeong, Ilk- won Byun, Junhyuk Choi, Juwon Hong, and Jangwoo Kim. 2024. A Fault-Tolerant Million Qubit-Scale Distributed Quantum Computer. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Volume 2 (La Jolla, CA, USA)(ASPLOS ’24...

    work page doi:10.1145/3620665.3640388 2024

  37. [37]

    Fowler, Klaus Mølmer, Simon J

    Bjoern Lekitsch, Sebastian Weidt, Austin G. Fowler, Klaus Mølmer, Simon J. Devitt, Christof Wunderlich, and Win- fried K. Hensinger. 2017. Blueprint for a microwave trapped ion quantum computer.Science Advances3, 2 (2017), e1601540. arXiv:https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.1601540 doi:10.1126/sciadv.1601540

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.1601540 2017

  38. [38]

    Daniel Litinski. 2019. A Game of Surface Codes: Large-Scale Quantum Computing with Lattice Surgery.Quantum3 (March 2019), 128. doi:10. 22331/q-2019-03-05-128 15 Dmitry Filippov, Peter Yang, and Prakash Murali

    work page 2019

  39. [39]

    Daniel Litinski. 2019. Magic State Distillation: Not as Costly as You Think.Quantum3 (Dec. 2019), 205. doi:10.22331/q-2019-12-02-205

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2019-12-02-205 2019

  40. [40]

    Daniel Litinski and Felix von Oppen. 2018. Quantum Computing with Majorana Fermion Codes. Phys. Rev. B 97, 205404 (2018). (2018). arXiv:arXiv:1801.08143 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.97.205404

    work page Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevb.97.205404 2018

  41. [41]

    Seth Lloyd. 1996. Universal quantum simulators.Science273, 5278 (1996), 1073–1078

    work page 1996

  42. [42]

    Guang Hao Low and Isaac L Chuang. 2017. Optimal Hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing.Physical review letters118, 1 (2017), 010501

    work page 2017

  43. [43]

    D. Main, P. Drmota, D. P. Nadlinger, E. M. Ainley, A. Agrawal, B. C. Nichol, R. Srinivas, G. Araneda, and D. M. Lucas. 2025. Distributed quantum computing across an optical network link.Nature638, 8050 (01 Feb 2025), 383–388. doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08404-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08404-x 2025

  44. [44]

    How to Build a Quantum Supercomputer: Scaling from Hundreds to Millions of Qubits

    Masoud Mohseni, Artur Scherer, K. Grace Johnson, Oded Wertheim, Matthew Otten, Navid Anjum Aadit, Yuri Alexeev, Kirk M. Bresniker, Kerem Y. Camsari, Barbara Chapman, Soumitra Chatterjee, Gebremed- hin A. Dagnew, Aniello Esposito, Farah Fahim, Marco Fiorentino, Ar- chit Gajjar, Abdullah Khalid, Xiangzhou Kong, Bohdan Kulchytskyy, Elica Kyoseva, Ruoyu Li, P...

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    S. A. Moses, C. H. Baldwin, M. S. Allman, R. Ancona, L. Ascarrunz, C. Barnes, J. Bartolotta, B. Bjork, P. Blanchard, M. Bohn, J. G. Bohnet, N. C. Brown, N. Q. Burdick, W. C. Burton, S. L. Campbell, J. P. Campora, C. Carron, J. Chambers, J. W. Chan, Y. H. Chen, A. Chernoguzov, E. Chertkov, J. Colina, J. P. Curtis, R. Daniel, M. DeCross, D. Deen, C. Delaney...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041052 2023

  46. [46]

    Devitt, Kae Nemoto, and Ilia Polian

    Alexandru Paler, Simon J. Devitt, Kae Nemoto, and Ilia Polian. 2014. Software Pauli Tracking for Quantum Computation. (2014). doi:10. 48550/ARXIV.1401.5872

    work page Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  47. [47]

    John Preskill. 2025. Beyond nisq: The megaquop machine. 7 pages

    work page 2025

  48. [48]

    Jiawei Qiu, Yang Liu, Jingjing Niu, Ling Hu, Yukai Wu, Libo Zhang, Wenhui Huang, Yuanzhen Chen, Jian Li, Song Liu, Youpeng Zhong, Luming Duan, and Dapeng Yu. 2023. Deterministic quantum telepor- tation between distant superconducting chips. Science Bulletin 70, 351 (2025). (2023). arXiv:arXiv:2302.08756 doi:10.1016/j.scib.2024.11.047

    work page doi:10.1016/j.scib.2024.11.047 2023

  49. [49]

    Breuckmann, and Vladan Vuletić

    Joshua Ramette, Josiah Sinclair, Nikolas P. Breuckmann, and Vladan Vuletić. 2024. Fault-tolerant connection of error-corrected qubits with noisy links.npj Quantum Information10, 1 (June 2024). doi:10.1038/ s41534-024-00855-4

    work page 2024

  50. [50]

    Riesebos, X

    L. Riesebos, X. Fu, S. Varsamopoulos, C. G. Almudever, and K. Bertels

    work page

  51. [51]

    InProceed- ings of the 54th Annual Design Automation Conference 2017 (DAC ’17)

    Pauli Frames for Quantum Computer Architectures. InProceed- ings of the 54th Annual Design Automation Conference 2017 (DAC ’17). ACM, 1–6. doi:10.1145/3061639.3062300

    work page doi:10.1145/3061639.3062300 2017

  52. [52]

    S. N. Saadatmand, Tyler L. Wilson, Mark J. Hodson, Mark Field, Si- mon J. Devitt, Madhav Krishnan Vijayan, Alan Robertson, Thinh P. Le, Jannis Ruh, Alexandru Paler, Arshpreet Singh Maan, Ioana Moflic, Athena Caesura, and Josh Y. Mutus. 2024. Superconducting qubits at the utility scale: the potential and limitations of modularity. arXiv:arXiv:2406.06015

    work page arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    Yu Shi, Ashlesha Patil, and Saikat Guha. 2025. Stabilizer Entanglement Distillation and Efficient Fault-Tolerant Encoders.PRX Quantum6 (Mar 2025), 010339. Issue 1. doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.6.010339

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.6.010339 2025

  54. [54]

    P.W. Shor. 1994. Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete loga- rithms and factoring. InProceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foun- dations of Computer Science. 124–134. doi:10.1109/SFCS.1994.365700

    work page doi:10.1109/sfcs.1994.365700 1994

  55. [55]

    Josiah Sinclair, Joshua Ramette, Brandon Grinkemeyer, Dolev Blu- vstein, Mikhail D Lukin, and Vladan Vuletić. 2025. Fault-tolerant optical interconnects for neutral-atom arrays.Physical Review Re- search7, 1 (2025), 013313

    work page 2025

  56. [56]

    Smith, Gokul Subramanian Ravi, Jonathan M

    Kaitlin N. Smith, Gokul Subramanian Ravi, Jonathan M. Baker, and Frederic T. Chong. 2022. Scaling Superconducting Quantum Comput- ers with Chiplet Architectures. In2022 55th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO). 1092–1109. doi:10.1109/ MICRO56248.2022.00078

    work page arXiv 2022

  57. [57]

    Shinichi Sunami, Shiro Tamiya, Ryotaro Inoue, Hayata Yamasaki, and Akihisa Goban. 2025. Scalable Networking of Neutral-Atom Qubits: Nanofiber-Based Approach for Multiprocessor Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computers.PRX Quantum6, 1 (Feb. 2025). doi:10.1103/ prxquantum.6.010101

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    Advanced CMOS manufacturing of superconducting qubits on 300 mm wafers,

    J. Van Damme, S. Massar, R. Acharya, Ts. Ivanov, D. Perez Lozano, Y. Canvel, M. Demarets, D. Vangoidsenhoven, Y. Hermans, J. G. Lai, A. M. Vadiraj, M. Mongillo, D. Wan, J. De Boeck, A. Potočnik, and K. De Greve. 2024. Advanced CMOS manufacturing of superconducting qubits on 300 mm wafers.Nature634, 8032 (01 Oct 2024), 74–79. doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07941-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07941-9 2024

  59. [59]

    Quantum computing enhanced computational catalysis,

    Vera von Burg, Guang Hao Low, Thomas Häner, Damian S. Steiger, Markus Reiher, Martin Roetteler, and Matthias Troyer. 2021. Quantum computing enhanced computational catalysis.Phys. Rev. Res.3 (Jul 2021), 033055. Issue 3. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.033055

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.3.033055 2021

  60. [60]

    Jun-Yi Wu, Kosuke Matsui, Tim Forrer, Akihito Soeda, Pablo Andrés- Martínez, Daniel Mills, Luciana Henaut, and Mio Murao. 2023. Entanglement-efficient bipartite-distributed quantum computing. Quantum7 (Dec. 2023), 1196. doi:10.22331/q-2023-12-05-1196

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2023-12-05-1196 2023

  61. [61]

    Tour de gross: A modular quantum computer based on bivariate bicycle codes

    Theodore J. Yoder, Eddie Schoute, Patrick Rall, Emily Pritchett, Jay M. Gambetta, Andrew W. Cross, Malcolm Carroll, and Michael E. Bev- erland. 2025. Tour de gross: A modular quantum computer based on bivariate bicycle codes. arXiv:arXiv:2506.03094 1 A Rewrite rule correctness proof In order to prove correctness of the rewrite rule in figure 3 we will use...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025