Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

TensorQC: Towards Scalable Distributed Quantum Computing via Tensor Networks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read TensorQC claims that using tensor network contraction for classical post-processing turns circuit cutting's exponential reconstruction cost into an exponential in a smaller quantity, and demonstrates 200-qubit benchmarks on a single GPU.

desk verdict A genuinely useful tensor-network method for circuit-cutting post-processing with a proof flaw that kills the general exponential-advantage claim; referee it with a mandate to fix the theory. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03445 v1 pith:IPIMPEYJ submitted 2025-02-05 cs.ET quant-ph

Wei Tang , Margaret Martonosi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ETquant-ph MSC 81P6868Q12
keywords quantumcircuitcuttingtensornetworkcontractiondistributedcomputinghybridquantum-classicalknittinggraphpartitioningheavystateselectionbenchmarking
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Quantum circuit cutting splits a large quantum circuit into smaller subcircuits that run on smaller QPUs and reconstructs the output classically, but prior reconstruction methods cost an exponential in the number of cut edges. TensorQC establishes that this reconstruction is mathematically identical to contracting a tensor network, where each subcircuit is a tensor and each cut edge is a shared index of dimension four. This re-framing lowers the multiplication cost from $O(4^{|E|} m)$ to $O(4^{K_{\max}} m)$, with $K_{\max}$ the maximum number of cut edges appearing in any single contraction step, an exponential advantage when the circuit splits into more than three subcircuits. The paper combines this with a heavy-state-selection routine that reconstructs only high-amplitude output states and a greedy graph-growing cut finder, and demonstrates six benchmarks up to 200 qubits using one GPU while cutting QPU size and quality requirements by more than tenfold.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the tensor network formed by the subcircuit outputs: each subcircuit's output is a tensor whose indices are the cut edges it touches, every cut edge has dimension four, one per Pauli basis $\{I, X, Y, Z\}$, and reconstructing the original output is a sequence of pairwise tensor contractions over shared cut edges. The cost identity is that each contraction step costs $4^{\#\text{cuts in that step}}$ multiplications, so the total is $O(4^{K_{\max}} m)$ with $K_{\max}$ the maximum number of cut edges at any one step, replacing the $O(4^{|E|} m)$ brute-force bound. Heavy state selection (HSS) keeps only the highest-L2-norm binary states of each subcircuit before contraction, reducing the output dimension substantially. The greedy graph-growing algorithm merges neighboring circuit fragments by an estimated merging cost that penalizes violations of QPU constraints and large contraction-edge counts, approximating a solution to the NP-complete constrained graph partitioning problem that finds cuts.

What would settle it

Construct a partition with four subcircuits where two of the subcircuits jointly touch every cut edge, so that the first tensor contraction has $K_1 = |E|$; then TensorQC's cost is $O(4^{|E|})$ and the gap to the $O(4^{|E|} m)$ baseline becomes only the factor $m$. A wall-clock comparison on such a network, or a direct count of contractions, would settle whether the exponential advantage survives outside the paper's demonstrated benchmarks.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the classical co-processing step of circuit cutting is a tensor network contraction, so it inherits the cost savings of contraction-order optimization. Prior methods evaluate the reconstruction formula by iterating over all $4^{|E|}$ basis permutations of the cut edges and multiplying every subcircuit output from scratch, costing $O(4^{|E|} m)$ multiplications. TensorQC instead contracts subcircuit tensors pairwise along their shared cut edges, reusing intermediate products and exploiting the distributive property of multiplication, with total cost bounded by $O(4^{K_{\max}} m)$; the paper argues that $K_{\max} < |E|$ whenever more than three subcircuits are produced, which is the source of the exponential gap. On top of this, heavy state selection prunes each subcircuit's output to a few significant binary states, cutting the reconstructed dimension from $2^n$ to a product of small per-subcircuit sets, and a greedy graph-growing heuristic searches for cuts under QPU width, gate-count, and contraction-edge constraints. The paper reports end-to-end runtimes for six benchmarks up to 200 qubits on a single GPU, with QPU quantum-area requirements reduced by more than $10\times$.

Load-bearing premise

The exponential speedup rests on the unproven assertion that $K_{\max} < |E|$ whenever a circuit is split into more than three subcircuits, and the large-benchmark demonstrations assume that random subcircuit outputs faithfully reproduce the post-processing cost structure of real QPU data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Distributed hybrid quantum computing becomes practical for circuits that exceed any single QPU's capacity: the paper runs six benchmarks up to 200 qubits with one GPU for classical post-processing.
  • QPU resource requirements, measured as the quantum area of the largest subcircuit, shrink by more than $10\times$, relaxing both qubit-count and error-rate demands on near-term hardware.
  • For output landscapes with a few dominant states, such as GHZ and W-state circuits, heavy state selection reconstructs nearly all probability mass while sampling far fewer than one part per million of the binary states.
  • For distributed output landscapes, such as random supremacy circuits, heavy state selection retains a smaller fraction of the amplitude but still approaches the maximum possible retention for a fixed state budget.
  • The classical post-processing cost advantage over the prior parallelized reconstruction method can exceed $10^9\times$ on the demonstrated benchmarks.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The exponential advantage is only guaranteed when no pair of subcircuits collectively touches all cut edges; partitionings in which a small cluster of subcircuits covers all cuts would reduce the speedup to roughly linear, a regime the paper does not analyze.
  • Because heavy state selection is most effective on skewed output distributions, the method suggests a practical workload-selection rule: prefer cutting circuits whose amplitude landscape concentrates on few states, such as optimization and state-preparation circuits.
  • The paper's multiplication-count cost model is a proxy for wall-clock runtimes; a GPU-profiling-aware cost model would likely change the cut-finding decisions and tighten the runtime estimates, as the paper itself notes.
  • Wire cutting along qubit wires is orthogonal to gate-level circuit knitting, so combining both would allow partitioning at arbitrary two-qubit gates and could expand the space of feasible, low-cost cuts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. TensorQC proposes to replace the brute-force reconstruction step of quantum circuit cutting with tensor network contraction, together with a heavy-state-selection heuristic and a greedy graph-growing algorithm to locate cuts. The paper claims an exponential runtime advantage over prior parallelization (CutQC), formalized as O(4^{Kmax} m) versus O(4^{|E|} m), and reports benchmarks up to 200 qubits run on a single GPU with reduced quantum area requirements.

Significance. The tensor-network equivalence for circuit-cutting reconstruction is mathematically sound, and the cost model provides a useful framework for reasoning about hybrid quantum-classical runtime. The benchmark suite covers diverse circuits, and the reported contraction-time scaling on a GPU is a promising indicator. However, the general exponential-advantage claim is not established, and the experiments use synthetic subcircuit outputs rather than actual QPU execution, so the practical significance as stated is not yet demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-D, Eqs. (4)-(5)] The claim that Kmax < |E| whenever there are more than three subcircuits is false. Consider a star topology with m=4 subcircuits: a central subcircuit C1 connected to leaves C2, C3, C4 by three cut edges, so |E|=3. Any contraction sequence that produces the final state must at some step merge the tensor containing C1 with the rest, and at that step all three cut edges are present as open indices; pre-contracting the leaves does not remove them. Hence every contraction order has Kmax=3=|E|, contradicting the proof in Section III-D. The exponential advantage over CutQC therefore does not hold for arbitrary cut networks; it can only be claimed for restricted topologies (e.g., bounded treewidth) or for the specific cut graphs arising in the benchmarks, and the manuscript should state and prove a conditional theorem.
  2. [Section VII-A and Abstract] The abstract asserts that the benchmarks run "using QPUs available nowadays," but Section VII-A states that QPUs are too small and noisy, and instead the authors "use random numbers as the subcircuit output." The 200-qubit results are therefore classical post-processing demonstrations on synthetic vectors, not end-to-end hybrid executions on QPUs. This also undermines the HSS evaluation in Section VIII-D, because the L2 norms that drive Algorithm 1 are computed from random data rather than from true subcircuit probability distributions, so the reported amplitude-retention ratios do not validate the protocol for real circuit outputs.
  3. [Section VIII-B, Figure 10] The "exponential classical overhead advantage" is computed as a ratio of multiplication counts between the optimized tensor-network contraction and CutQC's brute-force reconstruction. Since the tensor-network cost is optimized by CoTenGra, the reported ratios depend on the cut graph structure and do not substantiate the general complexity-theoretic claim of Section III-D. The paper should either provide a rigorous bound on Kmax for the benchmark cut graphs or present Figure 10 as an empirical observation for those circuits only, without extrapolating to a universal exponential advantage.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III-C, Eq. (5)] The cost of the prior method for m subcircuits is 4^{|E|} (m-1) scalar multiplications, not 4^{|E|} m; the factor m appears to be an overcount in the asymptotic complexity expression.
  2. [Section V, Eq. (6)] The QPU runtime model multiplies by 2^{wi} while also stating that the number of shots equals the number of states per subcircuit; the relationship between the shot count and the factor 2^{wi} should be clarified, since a single factor may be double-counting the number of subcircuit executions.
  3. [Algorithm 1] The loop description in lines 2-6 of Algorithm 1 is ambiguous: the statement "Add arg max ||pj,i|| to xj" does not specify the range of the argmax, and the "Remove max" step is unclear about whether the state is removed from the candidate set or from the subcircuit output.
  4. [Figures 7-11] Figure 7 includes error bars, but Figures 8-11 do not; the paper should state whether these are single runs or averages and, if averages, why error bars are omitted.
  5. [Section VII-A] The assumption of ten QPUs is stated but not justified against actual cloud availability, and it is unclear whether the QPU runtime in Eq. (6) is divided by ten or treated as a total across all QPUs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: TensorQC's runtime comparison is an algebraic accounting identity with no fitted parameters; the only caveats (Section III-D topology proof gap, random subcircuit outputs) are correctness or limitation issues, not circularity.

full rationale

The central claim is a direct algebraic comparison rather than a fitted or self-referential prediction. Equation (1) defines the brute-force reconstruction as summing over 4^{|E|} edge-base permutations, giving cost O(4^{|E|} m). Equations (3) and (4) express the same summation as tensor contractions whose per-step cost is 4^{#cuts}, bounded by O(4^{Kmax} m). Kmax is obtained from the tensor network topology, not calibrated to measured runtimes. The runtime model in Equations (6)-(8) uses fixed hardware timings (tg = 10^{-7} s, tm = 10^{-6} s), fixed GPU throughput, and hand-set heuristic thresholds (Kt = 10, Qmax = 10^4); no parameter is fitted to the wall-clock points in Figure 7, and the paper explicitly notes its estimates tend to overestimate, which is inconsistent with post-hoc fitting. The only same-author citations ([47], [48]) describe the baseline parallel reconstruction being compared and are not load-bearing for TensorQC's own derivation. Two non-circular concerns are noted: Section VII-A states that large-benchmark subcircuit outputs are random numbers, so the large-scale runtime demonstrations are shape-preserving but not end-to-end QPU executions; and Section III-D's proof that Kmax < |E| for more than three subcircuits is not generally valid (a four-subcircuit cycle can have every first contraction touching all edges). These are correctness or methodology limitations, not circular reductions of the paper's results to their own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the cost model and the assertion Kmax < |E| for more than three subcircuits, as well as on benchmark-specific favorable structure. No new physical entities are introduced; the free parameters are hand-set thresholds and hardware timing assumptions used in the cut search and runtime estimation.

free parameters (4)
  • Kt = 10
    Threshold on the number of contraction edges in the greedy graph-growing heuristic (Section VI-B); hand-set and used to distinguish acceptable from heavily penalized merges, directly shaping the cut solutions and the reported quantum-area reductions.
  • Qmax = 10^4
    Merging cost cutoff in Algorithm 2; hand-set, determines when the greedy search stops merging partitions (Section VII-A).
  • smax (HSS state limit) = 28
    Maximum number of retained binary states per subcircuit in the HSS experiments (Section VIII-D); chosen by the authors, controls the accuracy and data-efficiency results.
  • Number of shots per subcircuit = 2^w_i with limits 2^10 to 2^20
    Assumed in the QPU runtime model (Eq. 6, Section V); not derived from physical requirements, affects the estimated QPU runtime and hence the cut search.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The circuit-cutting reconstruction formula (Eq. 1) equals a tensor network contraction over cut-edge indices.
    The equivalence is argued in Section III-B and is standard in tensor network theory; it is the basis for the entire approach.
  • domain assumption The cost of contracting a tensor network is captured by counting multiplications as 4^#cuts per contraction step, independent of output-state dimensions.
    Section III-C uses this cost model to derive the O(4^{Kmax} m) bound; it ignores the 2^w factors of the subcircuit output vectors and assumes FLOPs dominate.
  • ad hoc to paper For any partition into more than three subcircuits, an optimal contraction sequence has Kmax < |E|.
    Section III-D asserts this without proof; it fails for topologies where the first contracted subcircuit pair touches all cut edges, so the exponential advantage is not general.
  • ad hoc to paper The greedy graph-growing heuristic and the threshold table (Table I) approximate the solution to the NP-hard cut-partition problem.
    Section VI-B introduces Algorithm 2 and Table I as a heuristic proxy for minimizing the hybrid runtime objective (Eq. 8); its quality is only validated empirically on the selected benchmarks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TensorQC: Towards Scalable Distributed Quantum Computing via Tensor Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IPIMPEYJ

@misc{pith2026250203445,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TensorQC: Towards Scalable Distributed Quantum Computing via Tensor Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IPIMPEYJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03445}
}
abstract

A quantum processing unit (QPU) must contain a large number of high quality qubits to produce accurate results for problems at useful scales. In contrast, most scientific and industry classical computation workloads happen in parallel on distributed systems, which rely on copying data across multiple cores. Unfortunately, copying quantum data is theoretically prohibited due to the quantum non-cloning theory. Instead, quantum circuit cutting techniques cut a large quantum circuit into multiple smaller subcircuits, distribute the subcircuits on parallel QPUs and reconstruct the results with classical computing. Such techniques make distributed hybrid quantum computing (DHQC) a possibility but also introduce an exponential classical co-processing cost in the number of cuts and easily become intractable. This paper presents TensorQC, which leverages classical tensor networks to bring an exponential runtime advantage over state-of-the-art parallelization post-processing techniques. As a result, this paper demonstrates running benchmarks that are otherwise intractable for a standalone QPU and prior circuit cutting techniques. Specifically, this paper runs six realistic benchmarks using QPUs available nowadays and a single GPU, and reduces the QPU size and quality requirements by more than $10\times$ over purely quantum platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03445 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of cutting a 5-qubit quantum circuit with one cut to divide it into two smaller subcircuits. (Left) The red cross indicates the cutting point. Subcircuit 1 is shaded dark and subcircuit 2 is shaded light. (Right) The dashed arrow between the subcircuits shows the path undertaken by the qubit wire being cut. The one cut needs to permute through the {I, X, Y, Z} bases to reconstruct the unknown cut state. The … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A hypothetical 4-subcircuit scenario to demonstrate the two sources of inefficiencies of prior works. Consider the case where e1,2,3 are fixed and only e4 permutes. distribution across CPUs and GPUs [47], [48]. However, simple parallelization only reduces the runtime linearly in a fundamentally exponential problem. The previous method incurs excessive costs due to redun￾dant computations. Typically, an input benchma… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Reconstructing two subcircuits is equivalent to a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Contracting the tensor network example from Figure 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Slicing one cut edge to express a tensor network as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Finding cuts for a quantum circuit reduces to finding a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: End-to-end wall clock runtimes. Each data point is the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: shows the wall clock and estimation runtime breakdown of the Supremacy benchmarks. The inaccuracy in the runtime predictions is from the estimated time to 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Classical post-processing overhead comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Retaining 2 8 binary states using HSS for increas￾ing benchmark sizes. HSS captures almost all the domi￾nating states for benchmarks with skewed outputs including W State and GHZ. Within our expectation, HSS captures decreasing amplitudes for other benchmarks with dis…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: HSS amplitude retention as a percentage of the max [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: HSS data efficiencies for various benchmarks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Towards a Utility-Scale Quantum Edge Detection for Real-World Medical Image Data

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A two-level decomposition of images and circuits lets Quantum Hadamard Edge Detection run with 62% lower depth, 93% fewer CNOTs, and 95.6% simulated fidelity, demonstrated on real MRI data.

  2. Solving Large-Scale Vehicle Routing Problems with Hybrid Quantum-Classical Decomposition

    quant-ph 2025-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A standard graph partitioner and circuit-cutting toolkit shrink a 13-node VRP from 156 qubits to 6-qubit subcircuits, but the quality of the 13-node solution is not reported.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [47]

    Cutting quantum circuits to run on quantum and classical platforms,

    W. Tang and M. Martonosi, “Cutting quantum circuits to run on quantum and classical platforms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.05836 , 2022

    arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    Universal gates for protected superconducting qubits using optimal control,

    M. Abdelhafez, B. Baker, A. Gyenis, P. Mundada, A. A. Houck, D. Schuster, and J. Koch, “Universal gates for protected superconducting qubits using optimal control,” Physical Review A , vol. 101, no. 2, p. 022321, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    Balanced graph partitioning,

    K. Andreev and H. Racke, “Balanced graph partitioning,” Theory of Computing Systems, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 929–939, 2006

    work page 2006

  4. [3]

    ARQUIN: Architectures for multinode superconducting quantum computers,

    J. Ang, G. Carini, Y . Chen, I. Chuang, M. Demarco, S. Economou, A. Eickbusch, A. Faraon, K.-M. Fu, S. Girvin, M. Hatridge, A. Houck, P. Hilaire, K. Krsulich, A. Li, C. Liu, Y . Liu, M. Martonosi, D. C. McKay, J. Misewich, M. Ritter, R. J. Schoelkopf, S. A. Stein, S. Suss- man, H. X. Tang, W. Tang, T. Tomesh, N. M. Tubman, C. Wang, N. Wiebe, Y .-X. Yao, D...

    work page 2024

  5. [4]

    Complexity of finding embeddings in ak-tree,

    S. Arnborg, D. G. Corneil, and A. Proskurowski, “Complexity of finding embeddings in ak-tree,” SIAM Journal on Algebraic Discrete Methods , vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 277–284, 1987

    work page 1987

  6. [5]

    Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor,

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y . Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, K. Guerin, S. Habegger, M. P. Harrigan, M. J. Hartmann, A. Ho, M. Hoffmann, T. Huang, T. ...

    2019

  7. [6]

    Approximate quantum fourier transform and decoherence,

    A. Barenco, A. Ekert, K.-A. Suominen, and P. T ¨orm¨a, “Approximate quantum fourier transform and decoherence,”Physical Review A, vol. 54, no. 1, p. 139, 1996

    work page 1996

  8. [7]

    i-qer: An intelligent approach towards quantum error reduction,

    S. Basu, A. Saha, A. Chakrabarti, and S. Sur-Kolay, “i-qer: An intelligent approach towards quantum error reduction,” ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 57 references
  1. [8]

    Characterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices,

    S. Boixo, S. V . Isakov, V . N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, N. Ding, Z. Jiang, M. J. Bremner, J. M. Martinis, and H. Neven, “Characterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices,”Nature Physics, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 595–600, 2018

    2018

  2. [9]

    The future of quantum computing with superconducting qubits,

    S. Bravyi, O. Dial, J. M. Gambetta, D. Gil, and Z. Nazario, “The future of quantum computing with superconducting qubits,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 132, no. 16, 2022

    2022

  3. [10]

    Subsys- tem surface codes with three-qubit check operators,

    S. Bravyi, G. Duclos-Cianci, D. Poulin, and M. Suchara, “Subsys- tem surface codes with three-qubit check operators,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1207.1443, 2012

    2012 arXiv

  4. [11]

    On optimizing a class of multi-dimensional loops with reduction for parallel execution,

    L. Chi-Chung, P. Sadayappan, and R. Wenger, “On optimizing a class of multi-dimensional loops with reduction for parallel execution,” Parallel Processing Letters, vol. 7, no. 02, pp. 157–168, 1997

    1997

  5. [12]

    Deterministic construction of arbitrary w states with quadratically increasing number of two-qubit gates,

    F. Diker, “Deterministic construction of arbitrary w states with quadratically increasing number of two-qubit gates,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.09290, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Systematic crosstalk mitigation for superconducting qubits via frequency-aware compilation,

    Y . Ding, P. Gokhale, S. F. Lin, R. Rines, T. Propson, and F. T. Chong, “Systematic crosstalk mitigation for superconducting qubits via frequency-aware compilation,” in 2020 53rd Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO). IEEE, 2020, pp. 201–214

    2020

  7. [14]

    Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways,

    W. D ¨ur, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, “Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways,” Physical Review A, vol. 62, no. 6, p. 062314, 2000

    2000

  8. [15]

    Doubling the size of quantum simulators by entanglement forging,

    A. Eddins, M. Motta, T. P. Gujarati, S. Bravyi, A. Mezzacapo, C. Had- field, and S. Sheldon, “Doubling the size of quantum simulators by entanglement forging,” PRX Quantum, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 010309, 2022

    2022

  9. [16]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, “A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation,

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, “Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation,” Physical Review A, vol. 86, no. 3, p. 032324, 2012

    2012

  11. [18]

    Hyper-optimized tensor network contraction,

    J. Gray and S. Kourtis, “Hyper-optimized tensor network contraction,” Quantum, vol. 5, p. 410, 2021

    2021

  12. [19]

    Going beyond bell’s theorem,

    D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, “Going beyond bell’s theorem,” in Bell’s theorem, quantum theory and conceptions of the universe. Springer, 1989, pp. 69–72

    1989

  13. [20]

    A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,

    L. K. Grover, “A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,” in Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing , 1996, pp. 212–219

    1996

  14. [21]

    Gpipe: Efficient training of giant neural networks using pipeline parallelism,

    Y . Huang, Y . Cheng, A. Bapna, O. Firat, D. Chen, M. Chen, H. Lee, J. Ngiam, Q. V . Le, Y . Wu, and Z. Chen, “Gpipe: Efficient training of giant neural networks using pipeline parallelism,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  15. [22]

    Ibm quantum,

    IBM, “Ibm quantum,” 2021, https://quantum.ibm.com/

    2021

  16. [23]

    Optimized surface code communi- cation in superconducting quantum computers,

    A. Javadi-Abhari, P. Gokhale, A. Holmes, D. Franklin, K. R. Brown, M. Martonosi, and F. T. Chong, “Optimized surface code communi- cation in superconducting quantum computers,” in Proceedings of the 50th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, 2017, pp. 692–705

    2017

  17. [24]

    A fast and high quality multilevel scheme for partitioning irregular graphs,

    G. Karypis and V . Kumar, “A fast and high quality multilevel scheme for partitioning irregular graphs,” SIAM Journal on scientific Computing, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 359–392, 1998

    1998

  18. [25]

    Multilevelk-way partitioning scheme for irregular graphs,

    ——, “Multilevelk-way partitioning scheme for irregular graphs,” Jour- nal of Parallel and Distributed computing , vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 96–129, 1998

    1998

  19. [26]

    Fluctuations of energy- relaxation times in superconducting qubits,

    P. Klimov, J. Kelly, Z. Chen, M. Neeley, A. Megrant, B. Burkett, R. Barends, K. Arya, B. Chiaro, Y . Chen, A. Dunsworth, A. Fowler, B. Foxen, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, T. Huang, E. Jeffrey, E. Lucero, J. Mutus, O. Naaman, C. Neill, C. Quintana, P. Roushan, D. Sank, A. ...

    2018

  20. [27]

    A game of surface codes: Large-scale quantum computing with lattice surgery,

    D. Litinski, “A game of surface codes: Large-scale quantum computing with lattice surgery,” Quantum, vol. 3, p. 128, 2019

    2019

  21. [28]

    Closing the “quantum supremacy

    Y . A. Liu, X. L. Liu, F. N. Li, H. Fu, Y . Yang, J. Song, P. Zhao, Z. Wang, D. Peng, H. Chen, C. Guo, H. Huang, W. Wu, and D. Chen, “Closing the “quantum supremacy” gap: Achieving real-time simulation of a random quantum circuit using a new Sunway supercomputer,” in Proceedin...

    2021

  22. [29]

    Simulating quantum computation by contract- ing tensor networks,

    I. L. Markov and Y . Shi, “Simulating quantum computation by contract- ing tensor networks,” SIAM Journal on Computing , vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 963–981, 2008

    2008

  23. [30]

    Quantum optimization using variational algorithms on near-term quantum devices,

    N. Moll, P. Barkoutsos, L. S. Bishop, J. M. Chow, A. Cross, D. J. Egger, S. Filipp, A. Fuhrer, J. M. Gambetta, M. Ganzhorn, A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, P. M ¨uller, W. Riess, G. Salis, J. Smolin, I. Tavernelli, and K. Temme, “Quantum optimization using variational algorithms on ...

    2018

  24. [31]

    Suppression of qubit crosstalk in a tunable coupling superconducting circuit,

    P. Mundada, G. Zhang, T. Hazard, and A. Houck, “Suppression of qubit crosstalk in a tunable coupling superconducting circuit,”Physical Review Applied, vol. 12, no. 5, p. 054023, 2019

    2019

  25. [32]

    Noise-adaptive compiler mappings for noisy intermediate-scale quan- tum computers,

    P. Murali, J. M. Baker, A. Javadi-Abhari, F. T. Chong, and M. Martonosi, “Noise-adaptive compiler mappings for noisy intermediate-scale quan- tum computers,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International 13 Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and ...

    2019

  26. [33]

    Software mitigation of crosstalk on noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers,

    P. Murali, D. C. McKay, M. Martonosi, and A. Javadi-Abhari, “Software mitigation of crosstalk on noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Archi- tectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems ...

    2020

  27. [34]

    Optimal qubit assignment and routing via integer programming,

    G. Nannicini, L. S. Bishop, O. Gunluk, and P. Jurcevic, “Optimal qubit assignment and routing via integer programming,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.06446, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  28. [35]

    A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states,

    R. Or ´us, “A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states,” Annals of Physics , vol. 349, pp. 117–158, 2014

    2014

  29. [36]

    Simulating large quantum circuits on a small quantum computer,

    T. Peng, A. W. Harrow, M. Ozols, and X. Wu, “Simulating large quantum circuits on a small quantum computer,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 125, no. 15, p. 150504, 2020

    2020

  30. [37]

    Circuit knitting with classical communica- tion,

    C. Piveteau and D. Sutter, “Circuit knitting with classical communica- tion,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 2023

    2023

  31. [38]

    Graph minors. x. obstructions to tree- decomposition,

    N. Robertson and P. D. Seymour, “Graph minors. x. obstructions to tree- decomposition,” Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B , vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 153–190, 1991

    1991

  32. [39]

    Approaches to constrained quantum approximate optimization,

    Z. H. Saleem, T. Tomesh, B. Tariq, and M. Suchara, “Approaches to constrained quantum approximate optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.06660, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  33. [40]

    The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states,

    U. Schollw ¨ock, “The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states,” Annals of physics , vol. 326, no. 1, pp. 96–192, 2011

    2011

  34. [41]

    Megatron-lm: Training multi-billion parameter language models using model parallelism,

    M. Shoeybi, M. Patwary, R. Puri, P. LeGresley, J. Casper, and B. Catan- zaro, “Megatron-lm: Training multi-billion parameter language models using model parallelism,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08053 , 2019

    1909 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,

    P. W. Shor, “Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,”SIAM review, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 303–332, 1999

    1999

  36. [43]

    Scaling super- conducting quantum computers with chiplet architectures,

    K. N. Smith, G. S. Ravi, J. M. Baker, and F. T. Chong, “Scaling super- conducting quantum computers with chiplet architectures,” in 2022 55th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 1092–1109

    2022

  37. [44]

    Comparing the overhead of topological and concatenated quantum error correction,

    M. Suchara, A. Faruque, C.-Y . Lai, G. Paz, F. T. Chong, and J. Ku- biatowicz, “Comparing the overhead of topological and concatenated quantum error correction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.2316 , 2013

    2013 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Optimality study of existing quantum computing layout synthesis tools,

    B. Tan and J. Cong, “Optimality study of existing quantum computing layout synthesis tools,” IEEE Transactions on Computers , 2020

    2020

  39. [46]

    Alpharouter: Quantum circuit routing with reinforcement learning and tree search,

    W. Tang, Y . Duan, Y . Kharkov, R. Fakoor, E. Kessler, and Y . Shi, “Alpharouter: Quantum circuit routing with reinforcement learning and tree search,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , vol. 1. IEEE, 2024, pp. 930–940

    2024

  40. [48]

    Cutqc: using small quantum computers for large quantum circuit evaluations,

    W. Tang, T. Tomesh, M. Suchara, J. Larson, and M. Martonosi, “Cutqc: using small quantum computers for large quantum circuit evaluations,” in Proceedings of the 26th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems , 2021, p...

    2021

  41. [49]

    Efficient tensor network simulation of ibm’s kicked ising experiment,

    J. Tindall, M. Fishman, M. Stoudenmire, and D. Sels, “Efficient tensor network simulation of ibm’s kicked ising experiment,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14887, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Coreset clustering on small quantum computers,

    T. Tomesh, P. Gokhale, E. R. Anschuetz, and F. T. Chong, “Coreset clustering on small quantum computers,” Electronics, vol. 10, no. 14, p. 1690, 2021

    2021

  43. [51]

    Matrix product density operators: Simulation of finite-temperature and dissipative systems,

    F. Verstraete, J. J. Garcia-Ripoll, and J. I. Cirac, “Matrix product density operators: Simulation of finite-temperature and dissipative systems,” Physical review letters, vol. 93, no. 20, p. 207204, 2004

    2004

  44. [52]

    Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations,

    G. Vidal, “Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations,” Physical review letters, vol. 91, no. 14, p. 147902, 2003

    2003

  45. [53]

    Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quantum many-body systems,

    ——, “Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quantum many-body systems,” Physical review letters, vol. 93, no. 4, p. 040502, 2004

    2004

  46. [54]

    A single quantum cannot be cloned,

    W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek, “A single quantum cannot be cloned,” Nature, vol. 299, no. 5886, pp. 802–803, 1982

    1982

  47. [55]

    The surface code with a twist,

    T. J. Yoder and I. H. Kim, “The surface code with a twist,” Quantum, vol. 1, p. 2, 2017

    2017

  48. [56]

    Quantum simulation with hybrid tensor networks,

    X. Yuan, J. Sun, J. Liu, Q. Zhao, and Y . Zhou, “Quantum simulation with hybrid tensor networks,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 127, no. 4, p. 040501, 2021

    2021

  49. [57]

    Highly accurate protein structure prediction with alphafold,

    A. ˇZ´ıdek, A. Potapenko, A. Bridgland, C. Meyer, S. A. A. Kohl, A. J. Ballard, A. Cowie, B. Romera-Paredes, S. Nikolov, R. Jain, J. Adler, T. Back, S. Petersen, D. Reiman, E. Clancy, M. Zielinski, M. Steinegger, M. Pacholska, T. Berghammer, S. Bodenstein, D. Silver, O. Vinyal...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.