Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 67 references

Fat-Tree QRAM: A High-Bandwidth Shared Quantum Random Access Memory for Parallel Queries

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One QRAM of size N can execute O(log N) queries in O(log N) time using O(N) qubits.

desk verdict Genuinely novel QRAM architecture with a load-bearing scaling contradiction between the abstract and Sec 4.3, and an unproven constant-depth swap step; worth reviewing on the architecture, not on the headline claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06767 v2 pith:KDOPKFPF submitted 2025-02-10 quant-ph cs.AR

Shifan Xu , Alvin Lu , Yongshan Ding This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.AR MSC 81P6868Q12 PACS 03.67.-a03.67.Lx
keywords quantumrandomaccessmemoryQRAMfat-treenetworkquerypipeliningbucket-brigadesuperconductingcircuitsschedulingshared
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

The paper proposes a quantum random access memory that lets a single memory serve many independent queries at once rather than queueing them. The central claim is that a Fat-Tree arrangement of quantum routers, with duplicated routers near the root, executes O(log N) independent queries in O(log N) total time using O(N) qubits, only twice the routers of a bucket-brigade QRAM. If true, a shared quantum memory could keep multiple parallel quantum algorithms busy without a serial bottleneck, and parallel variants of Grover, k-sum, Hamiltonian simulation, and quantum signal processing would run shallower circuits. The paper also gives superconducting-circuit layouts and a FIFO scheduling proof to show the pipeline can be physically realized and fully utilized.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Fat-Tree node: a multiplexed set of quantum routers at each tree level, with the router count decreasing by one from root to leaf. Query-level pipelining is carried by alternating local swap steps, SWAP-I and SWAP-II, in which each node exchanges input and router qubits between adjacent router copies in a single circuit layer; together with CSWAP gate steps for address loading and unloading and a classically controlled retrieval layer, this defines a 10-layer pipeline interval. The alternative view of the Fat-Tree as a stack of sub-QRAMs of increasing size, from address width 1 up to n, is what makes the swaps well-defined.

What would settle it

Compile the SWAP-I and SWAP-II steps onto the paper's thickness-2 nearest-neighbour layout for a range of N and count the circuit layers; finding any N where the swaps require more than one layer, or where left/right output wires cross within a plane, would invalidate the 10-layer pipeline interval and the O(log N) parallel-query latency.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Fat-Tree QRAM is a complete binary tree of quantum routers in which the router at level i of the bucket-brigade design is replaced by a node containing n-i routers, where n = log N. This duplication, which is only a constant factor in total qubits, lets O(log N) independent queries occupy disjoint router copies and move level by level through local SWAP operations. The paper claims that log(N) queries can be pipelined in O(log N) circuit depth, that data retrieval is a single fast layer, and that the architecture preserves the bucket-brigade infidelity scaling, F >= 1 - 2 log2(N)(epsilon0+epsilon1+epsilon2). It further claims that this is experimentally accessible: a modular design using superconducting cavities linked by coaxial cables and an on-chip thickness-2 planar design using through-substrate vias both implement the nodes with nearest-neighbor connectivity.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every query-moving step, a local swap of input and router qubits inside each Fat-Tree node, is a single circuit layer under the paper's bi-planar, nearest-neighbour wiring for every N; if any swap needs extra layers or long-range routing, the O(log N) parallel-query latency claim fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A size-N Fat-Tree QRAM can keep O(log N) QPUs or parallel query streams busy simultaneously, cutting total latency for log N serial queries from O(log^2 N) to O(log N).
  • Parallel query algorithms inherit a log-factor shallower circuit: Grover, k-sum, Hamiltonian simulation, and quantum signal processing each have their query-related depth reduced as stated in the paper.
  • QRAM bandwidth becomes constant in N under fixed gate times, rather than shrinking with memory size, while space-time volume per query stays O(N).
  • The same qubit budget can be traded between parallelism and fidelity: parallel copies can feed virtual distillation, or m pipelined queries can expose an encoded address's physical qubits for interleaved syndrome extraction.
  • FIFO scheduling provably minimizes total latency for both offline and online request streams, so the parallel throughput does not require a complex scheduler.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The duplication principle is not specific to bucket-brigade routing: any tree-organized QRAM that suffers from root serialization could gain query-level pipelining by multiplexing top-level routers, so fat-treeing select-swap or fanout QRAMs is a natural next step.
  • At constant bandwidth, throughput is eventually bounded by classical memory read and write speed rather than by the quantum fabric; the paper's time-budget analysis hints that classical memory swapping must keep pace with roughly 8.25 microseconds per query, and this could become the practical bottleneck for large N.
  • The O(N) qubit count hides a connectivity cost that grows toward the root; the modular coaxial-cable solution offloads crossings to wiring, so physical packaging, not qubit count, may determine the largest feasible Fat-Tree.
  • Pipelining and virtual distillation together suggest a practical operating point: dynamically choose how many of the log(N) parallel slots to spend on distillation copies versus independent queries, depending on the hardware noise level.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Fat-Tree QRAM, a bucket-brigade-derived quantum random access memory in which routers are duplicated at upper tree levels so that multiple queries can be pipelined through distinct router copies. The headline claim is that a size-N Fat-Tree QRAM can perform O(log N) independent queries in O(log N) total time using O(N) qubits, with only a constant-factor overhead over a single bucket-brigade QRAM. The manuscript develops the architectural construction, proposes modular and on-chip superconducting-cavity implementations with a bi-planar layout, gives an instruction-level pipeline schedule and a FIFO scheduling optimality proof, and analyzes fidelity, error correction, and end-to-end speedups for parallel quantum algorithms.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, this is a genuinely useful architectural contribution: it offers a concrete route to a shared, high-bandwidth QRAM that serves multiple QPUs without multiplying the memory hardware by the number of parallel queries. The paper is self-contained in its construction from the external BB QRAM model, and it ships unusually concrete artifacts for an architecture paper: exact resource tables (Table 1 and Table 2), an explicit pipelining algorithm (Alg. 1), a step-by-step instruction set (Appendix A.1), and a formal FIFO optimality argument (Appendix A.2). These are real strengths. However, the validity of the headline scaling rests on a constant-depth local-swap claim that is not yet rigorously established, and the paper contains a direct internal contradiction about whether the total depth is O(log N) or O(log^2 N). Both issues must be resolved before the contribution can be assessed as stated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.3, first paragraph] The sentence "we now describe ... to realize O(log(N)) quantum queries in O(log^2(N)) circuit depth" directly contradicts the abstract, Section 4.3.1, Section 5.1, and Table 1, all of which state or imply O(log N) total latency for log N parallel queries. Since the abstract's headline and the quantitative entries in Table 1 (e.g., t_log(N) = 16.5 log N - 8.375) depend on this scaling, the contradiction is load-bearing and not merely cosmetic. The authors must either correct the Section 4.3 sentence to O(log N) and justify it from the pipeline schedule, or, if O(log^2 N) is the true depth, revise the abstract, Figure 1, and Table 1 accordingly.
  2. [Section 4.3.1 and Section 4.2.2] The constant-depth local-swap claim is asserted but not proven under the stated connectivity model. The text says that swapping routers (i,j,k) and (i,j,k+1) for all nodes can be performed in a single circuit layer using nearest-neighbor connectivity, and that "all swap gates can be performed in parallel within a Fat-Tree node." This is the load-bearing step: if SWAP-I/SWAP-II require more than O(1) layers, or require long-range routing, the pipeline interval grows and the advertised O(log N) total latency for log N queries is lost. Figure 4 illustrates a single node and a two-plane decomposition, but it does not give a complete compilation of simultaneous SWAP-I and SWAP-II operations for arbitrary N, nor does it prove that the two swaps per router can be wired without crossings or serialization in the bi-planar layout. Please provide an explicit gate-level compilation for, say, N=32 and N=64, or a general geometric construction showing that all swaps in one SWAP-I or SWAP-II step fit in one nearest-neighbor layer.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Notation throughout] The paper uses "log2(N)" ambiguously to mean both log_2(N) and log^2(N) in different places (e.g., Section 8.1 vs. Figure 1(b)). Please standardize the notation, using \(\log_2\) for the base-2 logarithm and \(\log^2\) for the square.
  2. [Section 8.1] The phrase "only a constant factor (0.25x) worse" is ambiguous: the displayed bound gives infidelity 2 log N (eps0+eps1+eps2) for Fat-Tree versus 2 log N (eps0+eps1) for BB, so with the stated parameters the increase is a factor of 1.25, i.e., 25% worse. Please reword to avoid confusion.
  3. [Figure 6 caption] The caption says "query latency 29:25 in the case n=3" but the intended meaning appears to be a comparison of 29 versus 25 circuit layers. Please clarify the notation.
  4. [Appendix A.2] In the FIFO exchange proof, the inequality t_{x+1} <= t_x is used to denote that q_x is scheduled before the earlier-requested q_{x+1}. The wording is correct but terse; adding a sentence defining the indexing by schedule order rather than request order would prevent misreading.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity in the central derivation; the only self-citation is not load-bearing, though an internal O(log^2 N) statement in Sec. 4.3 conflicts with the abstract's O(log N) claim.

full rationale

The central Fat-Tree construction is self-contained: it starts from the external bucket-brigade QRAM model [19,23], duplicates routers by level, and counts circuit layers for loading, swapping, and data retrieval to obtain the pipelined latency. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the scaling claims do not reduce to measured or fitted inputs. The only direct self-citation is [60], used for the H-tree drawing convention, the Virtual QRAM baseline, and as a secondary citation for BB QRAM error resilience; none of these carry the novel parallel-query claim. The paper does contain an unresolved internal inconsistency that is a correctness risk rather than a circularity: Sec. 4.3 says the step-by-step operations 'realize O(log(N)) quantum queries in O(log^2(N)) circuit depth' while the abstract claims O(log(N)) independent queries in O(log(N)) time. Separately, the constant-depth SWAP-I/SWAP-II local-swap step in Sec. 4.3.1 is asserted rather than proven under the bi-planar nearest-neighbor layout of Sec. 4.2.2; if those swaps require more than one circuit layer, the advertised latency would fail. These are genuine technical concerns, but they are not cases where an output is equivalent to an input by construction, so the circularity score remains low.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central scaling claims rest on the BB QRAM model and on the constant-depth local-swap assumption; the quoted gate times and error rates are hardware inputs that affect quantitative tables but not asymptotics. No new physical entities are introduced: the Fat-Tree node is an architectural arrangement of existing quantum routers, cavities, and couplers.

free parameters (3)
  • CSWAP gate time tau (from [57]) = 1 us
    External hardware parameter used to convert circuit-layer counts to bandwidth (Table 2). It affects absolute numbers, not the asymptotic claims; not fitted in this paper.
  • Intra-node SWAP gate time T_SWAP (from [37,57]) = 125 ns
    Used for fast-gate normalization in Table 1; external input, not fit by this paper.
  • Error rates eps0, eps1, eps2 = 0.002, 0.002, 0.001
    Chosen as 'experimentally realistic' from [49,57,66] for fidelity plots; the general fidelity bound is linear in these rates and does not depend on specific values.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Bucket-Brigade QRAM achieves O(log N) query latency and O(epsilon log^2 N) infidelity scaling
    Sec 2.2 and Sec 8.1 inherit the BB QRAM model and its noise-resilience theorem from [19,23].
  • domain assumption CSWAP gates can be implemented natively with the stated timing and fidelity in superconducting cavities
    Sec 4.2 relies on superconducting-cavity implementations with native CSWAP gates [57].
  • ad hoc to paper Local swaps within a Fat-Tree node can be performed in one circuit layer with nearest-neighbor connectivity
    Sec 4.3.1 states that local swapping provides a constant-depth solution, but no proof is given that the required SWAP-I/SWAP-II permutations are realizable in one layer under the proposed bi-planar connectivity for arbitrary N.
  • domain assumption Each gate is subject to an independent error channel E(rho) = (1 - eps) rho + eps K rho K^dagger
    Sec 8.1 adopts this error model from [23] without modification for the Fat-Tree setting.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fat-Tree QRAM: A High-Bandwidth Shared Quantum Random Access Memory for Parallel Queries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KDOPKFPF

@misc{pith2026250206767,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fat-Tree QRAM: A High-Bandwidth Shared Quantum Random Access Memory for Parallel Queries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KDOPKFPF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06767}
}
abstract

Quantum Random Access Memory (QRAM) is a crucial architectural component for querying classical or quantum data in superposition, enabling algorithms with wide-ranging applications in quantum arithmetic, quantum chemistry, machine learning, and quantum cryptography. In this work, we introduce Fat-Tree QRAM, a novel query architecture capable of pipelining multiple quantum queries simultaneously while maintaining desirable scalings in query speed and fidelity. Specifically, Fat-Tree QRAM performs $O(\log (N))$ independent queries in $O(\log (N))$ time using $O(N)$ qubits, offering immense parallelism benefits over traditional QRAM architectures. To demonstrate its experimental feasibility, we propose modular and on-chip implementations of Fat-Tree QRAM based on superconducting circuits and analyze their performance and fidelity under realistic parameters. Furthermore, a query scheduling protocol is presented to maximize hardware utilization and access the underlying data at an optimal rate. These results suggest that Fat-Tree QRAM is an attractive architecture in a shared memory system for practical quantum computing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06767 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Architectural schematics of a shared QRAM that is concurrently accessed by multiple QPUs. (b) Cost com￾parison between Fat-Tree and Bucket-Brigade (BB) QRAMs for executing 𝑂(log(𝑁)) independent queries. The proposed Fat-Tree QRAM allows 𝑂(log(𝑁)) queries to be executed in parallel while maintaining desirable asymptotic scalings, including 𝑂(𝑁) qubit count, 𝑂(log(𝑁)) total latency (i.e., circuit depth), and 𝑂(log… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Querying a Bucket-Brigade (BB) QRAM with capacity 𝑁 = 8 takes 25 circuit layers. A detailed step-by-step procedure can be found in Appendix A.1. The circuit layer number indicates the finishing time of each stage. (b) Each quantum router in the BB QRAM involves CSWAP operations between the router qubit and the data qubits. (c) H-tree layout of a BB QRAM. Quantum routers are organized in a binary tree structure, … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Layout of a Fat-Tree QRAM with capacity 𝑁 = 32 (Similar H-tree layout for BB QRAM appeared in [60]). Classical data are located at the leaves and the internal nodes contain multiplexed quantum routers. Colors of the routers and wires are used to indicate connection. The size of an internal node (i.e., number of qubits) increases linearly as we go up the tree. by advancements in parallel computing and networking in c… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Internal structure of a Fat-Tree node. (a) An example node (𝑖 = 1, 𝑗 = 0) in a capacity-32 Fat-Tree QRAM, containing 4 routers, 4 incoming wires from the top, and two sets of 3 outgoing wires to its left and right children. (b) A tunable coupler to coaxial wire for int…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An alternative conceptual interpretation of Fat￾Tree QRAM as a composition of multiple BB QRAMs of variable size (Sec. 4.3). connection between the two planes can be facilitated with the TSVs technique introduced in Sec. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Pipeline schedule of a capacity-8 Fat-Tree QRAM running 3 concurrent queries. Colors indicate which conceptual QRAM 𝑘 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Algorithm execution and query scheduling diagram with Fat-Tree QRAM. Every single query requires 10𝑛 − 1 circuit layers to finish for address width 𝑛, followed by 𝑑 circuit layers of QPU processing before the next query. In this example, QRAM is underutilized; that is,…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Bandwidth comparison for different QRAM archi￾tectures. Fat-Tree achieves a capacity-independent constant bandwidth. : Fat-Tree : BB : Virtual : D-Fat-Tree : D-BB k-Sum 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Grover 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Overall Circuit Dept…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a1/2) Overall algorithm depth of synthetic algo￾rithm in BB/Fat-Tree QRAM. (b1/2) QRAM utilization of syn￾thetic algorithm in BB/Fat-Tree QRAM. Fat-Tree QRAM bal￾ances processing/query ratio and parallel algorithms count, significantly reducing the overall algorithm …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Overall circuit depth for running parallel algo￾rithms, assuming memory size 𝑁 = 2 10. For QSP, we assume 𝑑 = 30 and 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑦(𝑑) = 𝑑 2 . Fat-Tree QRAM achieves up to a factor of 10 reduction compared to baselines BB and Virtual. 7.4 QRAM Hardware Utilization As discussed i…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Infidelity of a Fat-Tree QRAM, a BB QRAM, and a generic quantum circuit (GC) as a function of circuit size 𝑁 (or QRAM tree depth 𝑛 = log(𝑁)) and QEC code distance 𝑑, assuming physical gate error rate 𝜖0 = 10−3 . Fat-Tree and BB differ only slightly by a small constant…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A step-by-step pipelining diagram for three capacity-8 queries using the instruction set defined in Sec. A.1. Numbers in the operations refer to the information being moved by the operation with address qubits numbered 1 to 3 and 𝐵 denoting the bus (e.g. 𝑆1 represents…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Diagram depicting the effects of the first four fun￾damental operations: LOAD, TRANSPORT, ROUTE, STORE. The router highlighted in green denotes the router the operation is performed on. The orange qubit depicts where the infor￾mation is and how the operation moves it …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Yuri Alexeev, Dave Bacon, Kenneth R Brown, Robert Calderbank, Lincoln D Carr, Frederic T Chong, Brian DeMarco, Dirk Englund, Edward Farhi, Bill Fefferman, et al. 2021. Quantum computer systems for scientific discovery. PRX quantum 2, 1 (2021), 017001

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Mirko Amico, Helena Zhang, Petar Jurcevic, Lev S Bishop, Paul Nation, Andrew Wack, and David C McKay. 2023. Defining standard strategies for quantum benchmarks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.02108 (2023)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Economou, Alec Eickbusch, Andrei Faraon, Kai-Mei Fu, Steven M

    James Ang, Gabriella Carini, Yanzhu Chen, Isaac Chuang, Michael Austin DeMarco, Sophia E. Economou, Alec Eickbusch, Andrei Faraon, Kai-Mei Fu, Steven M. Girvin, Michael Hatridge, Andrew Houck, Paul Hilaire, Kevin Krsulich, Ang Li, Chenxu Liu, Yuan Liu, Margaret Martonosi, David C. McKay, James Misewich, Mark Ritter, Robert J. Schoelkopf, Samuel A. Stein, ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Dominic W Berry, Craig Gidney, Mario Motta, Jarrod R McClean, and Ryan Babbush. 2019. Qubitization of arbitrary basis quantum chemistry leveraging sparsity and low rank factorization. Quantum 3 (2019), 208

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    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. Assessing requirements to scale to practical quantum advantage. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.07629 (2022)

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Jacob Biamonte, Peter Wittek, Nicola Pancotti, Patrick Rebentrost, Nathan Wiebe, and Seth Lloyd. 2017. Quantum machine learning. Nature 549, 7671 (2017), 195–202

    2017

  7. [7]

    Hector Bombin, Isaac H Kim, Daniel Litinski, Naomi Nickerson, Mihir Pant, Fernando Pastawski, Sam Roberts, and Terry Rudolph. 2021. In- terleaving: Modular architectures for fault-tolerant photonic quantum computing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.08612 (2021)

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Teresa Brecht, Wolfgang Pfaff, Chen Wang, Yiwen Chu, Luigi Frunzio, Michel H Devoret, and Robert J Schoelkopf. 2016. Multilayer mi- crowave integrated quantum circuits for scalable quantum computing. npj Quantum Information 2, 1 (2016), 1–4

    work page 2016

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Marcello Caleffi, Michele Amoretti, Davide Ferrari, Daniele Cuomo, Jes- sica Illiano, Antonio Manzalini, and Angela Sara Cacciapuoti. 2022. Dis- tributed quantum computing: a survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10609 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Benjamin J Chapman, Stijn J de Graaf, Sophia H Xue, Yaxing Zhang, James Teoh, Jacob C Curtis, Takahiro Tsunoda, Alec Eickbusch, Alexan- der P Read, Akshay Koottandavida, et al . 2023. High-on-off-ratio beam-splitter interaction for gates on bosonically encoded qubits. PRX Quan...

    2023

  3. [11]

    Kevin C Chen, Wenhan Dai, Carlos Errando-Herranz, Seth Lloyd, and Dirk Englund. 2021. Scalable and high-fidelity quantum random access memory in spin-photon networks. PRX Quantum 2, 3 (2021), 030319

    2021

  4. [12]

    Andrew Cross, Zhiyang He, Patrick Rall, and Theodore Yoder. 2024. Improved QLDPC Surgery: Logical Measurements and Bridging Codes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.18393 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Bryan Eastin and Emanuel Knill. 2009. Restrictions on transversal encoded quantum gate sets. Physical review letters 102, 11 (2009), 110502

    2009

  6. [14]

    Jay Gambetta. 2020. IBM’s roadmap for scaling quantum technology. IBM Research Blog (September 2020) (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Jeffrey P Gambino, Shawn A Adderly, and John U Knickerbocker. 2015. An overview of through-silicon-via technology and manufacturing challenges. Microelectronic Engineering 135 (2015), 73–106

    2015

  8. [16]

    Suhas Ganjam, Yanhao Wang, Yao Lu, Archan Banerjee, Chan U Lei, Lev Krayzman, Kim Kisslinger, Chenyu Zhou, Ruoshui Li, Yichen Jia, et al. 2024. Surpassing millisecond coherence in on chip supercon- ducting quantum memories by optimizing materials and circuit design. Nature Com...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Yvonne Y Gao, Brian J Lester, Kevin S Chou, Luigi Frunzio, Michel H Devoret, Liang Jiang, SM Girvin, and Robert J Schoelkopf. 2019. Entan- glement of bosonic modes through an engineered exchange interaction. Nature 566, 7745 (2019), 509–512

    2019

  10. [18]

    Craig Gidney and Martin Ekerå. 2021. How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits. Quantum 5 (2021), 433

    2021

  11. [19]

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone. 2008. Archi- tectures for a quantum random access memory. Physical Review A 78, 5 (2008), 052310

    2008

  12. [20]

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone. 2008. Quan- tum random access memory. Physical review letters 100, 16 (2008), 160501

    2008

  13. [21]

    Lov K Grover. 1996. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing. 212–219

    1996

  14. [22]

    Connor T Hann. 2021. Practicality of Quantum Random Access Memory. Ph. D. Dissertation. Yale University

    2021

  15. [23]

    Connor T Hann, Gideon Lee, SM Girvin, and Liang Jiang. 2021. Re- silience of quantum random access memory to generic noise. PRX Quantum 2, 2 (2021), 020311

    2021

  16. [24]

    Connor T Hann, Chang-Ling Zou, Yaxing Zhang, Yiwen Chu, Robert J Schoelkopf, Steven M Girvin, and Liang Jiang. 2019. Hardware-efficient quantum random access memory with hybrid quantum acoustic sys- tems. Physical review letters 123, 25 (2019), 250501

    2019

  17. [25]

    Aram W Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd. 2009. Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations. Physical review letters 103, 15 (2009), 150502

    2009

  18. [26]

    Torsten Hoefler, Thomas Häner, and Matthias Troyer. 2023. Disen- tangling hype from practicality: On realistically achieving quantum advantage. Commun. ACM 66, 5 (2023), 82–87

    2023

  19. [27]

    William J Huggins, Sam McArdle, Thomas E O’Brien, Joonho Lee, Nicholas C Rubin, Sergio Boixo, K Birgitta Whaley, Ryan Babbush, and Jarrod R McClean. 2021. Virtual distillation for quantum error mitigation. Physical Review X 11, 4 (2021), 041036

    2021

  20. [28]

    Samuel Jaques and Arthur G Rattew. 2023. QRAM: A Survey and Critique. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10310 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    N Jiang, Y-F Pu, W Chang, C Li, S Zhang, and L-M Duan. 2019. Exper- imental realization of 105-qubit random access quantum memory. npj Quantum Information 5, 1 (2019), 28

    2019

  22. [30]

    V Krutyanskiy, M Galli, V Krcmarsky, S Baier, DA Fioretto, Y Pu, A Mazloom, P Sekatski, M Canteri, M Teller, et al. 2023. Entanglement of trapped-ion qubits separated by 230 meters. Physical Review Letters 130, 5 (2023), 050803

    2023

  23. [31]

    Aleksander Kubica, Beni Yoshida, and Fernando Pastawski. 2015. Un- folding the color code. New Journal of Physics 17, 8 (2015), 083026

    2015

  24. [32]

    Joonho Lee, Dominic W Berry, Craig Gidney, William J Huggins, Jar- rod R McClean, Nathan Wiebe, and Ryan Babbush. 2021. Even more efficient quantum computations of chemistry through tensor hyper- contraction. PRX Quantum 2, 3 (2021), 030305

    2021

  25. [33]

    Sebastien Leger, Connie Miao, Gideon Lee, Aditya Bhardwaj, Liang Jiang, David Schuster, and Aaron Trowbridge. 2024. Implementation of a Quantum Switch with Superconducting Circuits: Part 1-Theory. Bulletin of the American Physical Society (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Charles E Leiserson. 1985. Fat-trees: Universal networks for hardware- efficient supercomputing. IEEE transactions on Computers 100, 10 (1985), 892–901

    1985

  27. [35]

    Junyu Liu, Connor T Hann, and Liang Jiang. 2022. Quantum data center: Theories and applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.14336 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Junyu Liu, Connor T Hann, and Liang Jiang. 2023. Data centers with quantum random access memory and quantum networks. Physical Review A 108, 3 (2023), 032610. ASPLOS ’25, March 30–April 3, 2025, Rotterdam, Netherlands. Shifan Xu, Alvin Lu, & Yongshan Ding

    2023

  29. [37]

    Junyu Liu and Liang Jiang. 2024. Quantum data center: Perspectives. IEEE Network (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Li-Zheng Liu, Yu-Zhe Zhang, Zheng-Da Li, Rui Zhang, Xu-Fei Yin, Yue- Yang Fei, Li Li, Nai-Le Liu, Feihu Xu, and Yu-Ao Chen. 2021. Distributed quantum phase estimation with entangled photons. Nature Photonics 15, 2 (2021), 137–142

    2021

  31. [39]

    Guang Hao Low, Vadym Kliuchnikov, and Luke Schaeffer. 2024. Trad- ing T gates for dirty qubits in state preparation and unitary synthesis. Quantum 8 (2024), 1375

    2024

  32. [40]

    John M Martyn, Zane M Rossi, Kevin Z Cheng, Yuan Liu, and Isaac L Chuang. 2024. Parallel Quantum Signal Processing Via Polynomial Factorization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19043 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Rohan Mehta, Gideon Lee, and Liang Jiang. 2024. Analysis and sup- pression of errors in quantum random access memory errors under extended noise models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.10318 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Rodney Van Meter, WJ Munro, Kae Nemoto, and Kohei M Itoh. 2008. Arithmetic on a distributed-memory quantum multicomputer. ACM Journal on Emerging Technologies in Computing Systems (JETC) 3, 4 (2008), 1–23

    2008

  35. [43]

    Rodney Doyle Van Meter III. 2006. Architecture of a quantum mul- ticomputer optimized for shor’s factoring algorithm. arXiv preprint quant-ph/0607065 (2006)

    2006 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Connie Miao, Gideon Lee, Liang Jiang, and David Schuster. 2023. Im- plementation of a Quantum Switch with Superconducting Circuits. Bulletin of the American Physical Society (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Christopher Monroe, Robert Raussendorf, Alex Ruthven, Kenneth R Brown, Peter Maunz, L-M Duan, and Jungsang Kim. 2014. Large-scale modular quantum-computer architecture with atomic memory and photonic interconnects. Physical Review A 89, 2 (2014), 022317

    2014

  38. [46]

    Carmelo Mordini, Alfredo Ricci Vasquez, Yuto Motohashi, Mose Müller, Maciej Malinowski, Chi Zhang, Karan K Mehta, Daniel Kienzler, and Jonathan P Home. 2024. Multi-zone trapped-ion qubit control in an integrated photonics QCCD device. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.18056 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Naomi H Nickerson, Joseph F Fitzsimons, and Simon C Benjamin. 2014. Freely scalable quantum technologies using cells of 5-to-50 qubits with very lossy and noisy photonic links. Physical Review X 4, 4 (2014), 041041

    2014

  40. [48]

    Michael A Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang. 2010. Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press

    2010

  41. [49]

    Jingjing Niu, Libo Zhang, Yang Liu, Jiawei Qiu, Wenhui Huang, Jiax- iang Huang, Hao Jia, Jiawei Liu, Ziyu Tao, Weiwei Wei, et al . 2023. Low-loss interconnects for modular superconducting quantum pro- cessors. Nature Electronics 6, 3 (2023), 235–241

    2023

  42. [50]

    Yun-Fei Niu, Shuo Zhang, Chen Ding, Wan-Su Bao, and He-Liang Huang. 2023. Parameter-parallel distributed variational quantum al- gorithm. SciPost Physics 14, 5 (2023), 132

    2023

  43. [51]

    Alexandru Paler, Oumarou Oumarou, and Robert Basmadjian. 2020. Parallelizing the queries in a bucket-brigade quantum random access memory. Physical Review A 102, 3 (2020), 032608

    2020

  44. [52]

    Kelly R Patton and Uwe R Fischer. 2013. Ultrafast quantum random access memory utilizing single Rydberg atoms in a Bose-Einstein condensate. arXiv preprint arXiv:1307.0963 (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Juan M Pino, Jennifer M Dreiling, Caroline Figgatt, John P Gaebler, Steven A Moses, MS Allman, CH Baldwin, Michael Foss-Feig, David Hayes, Karl Mayer, et al . 2021. Demonstration of the trapped-ion quantum CCD computer architecture. Nature 592, 7853 (2021), 209– 213

    2021

  46. [54]

    D Rosenberg, D Kim, R Das, D Yost, S Gustavsson, D Hover, P Krantz, A Melville, L Racz, GO Samach, et al. 2017. 3D integrated supercon- ducting qubits. npj quantum information 3, 1 (2017), 42

    2017

  47. [55]

    Peter W Shor. 1994. Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring. In Proceedings 35th annual symposium on foundations of computer science . Ieee, 124–134

    1994

  48. [56]

    Joran van Apeldoorn, András Gilyén, Sander Gribling, and Ronald de Wolf. 2020. Convex optimization using quantum oracles. Quantum 4 (2020), 220

    2020

  49. [57]

    DK Weiss, Shruti Puri, and SM Girvin. 2024. Quantum Random Ac- cess Memory Architectures Using 3D Superconducting Cavities. PRX Quantum 5, 2 (2024), 020312

    2024

  50. [58]

    Anbang Wu, Yufei Ding, and Ang Li. 2023. QuComm: Optimizing Collective Communication for Distributed Quantum Computing. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture. 479–493

    2023

  51. [59]

    Qian Xu, J Pablo Bonilla Ataides, Christopher A Pattison, Nithin Raveendran, Dolev Bluvstein, Jonathan Wurtz, Bane Vasić, Mikhail D Lukin, Liang Jiang, and Hengyun Zhou. 2024. Constant-overhead fault-tolerant quantum computation with reconfigurable atom arrays. Nature Physics ...

    2024

  52. [60]

    Shifan Xu, Connor T Hann, Ben Foxman, Steven M Girvin, and Yong- shan Ding. 2023. Systems architecture for quantum random access memory. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture. 526–538

    2023

  53. [61]

    Sophia Xue, Stijn de Graaf, Benjamin Chapman, Yaxing Zhang, James Teoh, Jacob Curtis, Takahiro Tsunoda, Alec Eickbusch, Alexander Read, Akshay Koottandavida, et al. 2023. A hybrid controlled-SWAP gate between two bosonic modes. Bulletin of the American Physical Society (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    Theodore J Yoder, Ryuji Takagi, and Isaac L Chuang. 2016. Universal fault-tolerant gates on concatenated stabilizer codes. Physical Review X 6, 3 (2016), 031039

    2016

  55. [63]

    Donna-Ruth W Yost, Mollie E Schwartz, Justin Mallek, Danna Rosen- berg, Corey Stull, Jonilyn L Yoder, Greg Calusine, Matt Cook, Rabindra Das, Alexandra L Day, et al. 2020. Solid-state qubits integrated with superconducting through-silicon vias. npj Quantum Information 6, 1 (2020), 59

    2020

  56. [64]

    Christof Zalka. 1999. Grover’s quantum searching algorithm is optimal. Physical Review A 60, 4 (1999), 2746

    1999

  57. [65]

    Zhicheng Zhang, Qisheng Wang, and Mingsheng Ying. 2024. Parallel quantum algorithm for hamiltonian simulation. Quantum 8 (2024), 1228

    2024

  58. [66]

    Youpeng Zhong, Hung-Shen Chang, Audrey Bienfait, Étienne Dumur, Ming-Han Chou, Christopher R Conner, Joel Grebel, Rhys G Povey, Haoxiong Yan, David I Schuster, et al. 2021. Deterministic multi-qubit entanglement in a quantum network.Nature 590, 7847 (2021), 571–575

    2021

  59. [2022]

    arXiv:2212.06167 [quant-ph]

    Architectures for Multinode Superconducting Quantum Computers. arXiv:2212.06167 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.