Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

TrapSIMD: SIMD-Aware Compiler Optimization for 2D Trapped-Ion Quantum Machines

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A SIMD-aware compiler for trapped-ion quantum machines cuts runtime up to 3.82x.

desk verdict A real SIMD-aware compiler abstraction for trapped-ion QCCD, but the headline 3.82x speedup rests on an unvalidated cost model for grouped shifts—conditionally support, needs hardware evidence and sensitivity analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17886 v2 pith:YT34ZZAG submitted 2025-04-24 quant-ph

Jixuan Ruan , Hezi Zhang , Xiang Fang , Ang Li , Wesley C. Campbell , Eric Hudson , David Hayes , Hartmut Haeffner
show 3 more authors
Travis Humble Jens Palsberg Yufei Ding
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords trapped-ionquantumcomputingQCCDarchitectureSIMDcompilationiontransportschedulingcircuitmappingNISQbenchmarkssurfacecodeshardware-softwareco-design
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

This paper claims that trapped-ion QCCD hardware should be compiled as a SIMD machine: groups of ions moving together inside a trap, and global junction transfers, are treated as single wide instructions rather than scalar moves. It builds a compiler, FluxTrap, around this idea, with an instruction set (S3 for grouped intra-trap shifts, JT-SIMD for synchronized inter-trap transfers) and a switchable position graph that encodes gate-zone locations and the mutual exclusion of intra- and inter-trap transport. Two passes—SIMD aggregation and SIMD scheduling—turn a circuit into grouped transports and then schedule them with a gate-zone-aware cost function and time-sliced synchronization. The paper's evidence is that on NISQ benchmarks this cuts execution time by up to 3.82x and raises fidelity by orders of magnitude, and that the same compiler schedules surface-code fault-tolerant workloads across varied hardware layouts. The reason to care is that ion transport dominates runtime on these machines, so any compiler that reduces the number of transport instructions attacks the main bottleneck.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the two SIMD instruction classes and the enriched graph that carries them. S3 (segmented intra-trap shift SIMD) is one instruction that moves a contiguous group of ions in a chosen direction within a linear trap segment, with data width equal to the number of ions moved; JT-SIMD (junction transfer SIMD) is one globally broadcast instruction that tells every participating 2D junction to perform the same transport type and same direction, chosen from 18 legal classes (12 shifts, 6 swaps). The SIMD-enriched position graph extends the ordinary position graph by making connectivity switchable (intra-trap mode or inter-trap mode, never both), by marking which positions are gate zones, and by exposing the trap-length-versus-junction-count topology tradeoff. The scheduling pass then uses a hierarchical rule—evaluate candidate JT-SIMD classes, compare the best inter-trap plan against the intra-trap plan via the condition that the inter-trap plan must more than double the heuristic cost reduction—and a time-sliced synchronization that advances time by the shortest remaining operation for intra-trap moves and waits for all intra-trap moves to finish before a global transfer.

What would settle it

On a real segmented ion trap, measure the latency and error rate of a shift that moves k ions at once for k = 1, 2, 3, ..., and compare with k times the single-shift value. If per-instruction latency grows with k, or if the measured fidelity of a k-ion S3 instruction is worse than the product of k single-shift fidelities, then the execution-time and fidelity improvements reported for L=14 would shrink proportionally to the true grouped-shift cost.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the QCCD architecture's native behaviors—segmented shifts of several ions at once and globally synchronized junction transfers—are not just constraints to route around but an instruction-level resource, exactly analogous to SIMD in classical vector processors. FluxTrap formalizes this as two instruction classes, S3 and JT-SIMD, and a SIMD-enriched position graph whose connectivity switches between intra-trap and inter-trap modes depending on the active instruction. The aggregation pass builds candidate grouped transports through a timeline-aware forward search with position locking, and the scheduling pass picks between intra- and inter-trap plans using the rule that a global transport is issued only when its projected cost reduction is more than twice the best intra-trap alternative, which naturally batches same-direction junction moves. The concrete quantitative claim is an up-to-3.82x execution-time reduction (RCA-60 at trap capacity 14, from 1,131,689 to 296,592 microseconds) and multi-order-of-magnitude fidelity improvement on QAOA, RCA, BV, and VQE circuits, plus full support for surface-code fault-tolerant circuits with logical error rates down to $10^{-8}$.

Load-bearing premise

The chain of evidence assumes that a grouped multi-ion shift can be issued as a single instruction with the same 58-microsecond latency and the same per-ion fidelity as a single shift, and that grouping adds no thermal or crosstalk penalty; the paper supplies no hardware measurement of such an instruction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • QCCD compilers should treat grouped ion shifts and global junction transfers as first-class instructions; scalar SISD compilers leave transport bandwidth idle by fragmenting moves.
  • Hardware control systems should be designed so that segmented multi-ion shifts can be issued at single-shift latency, since the headline speedup depends on that capability.
  • The scheduling rule of delaying a global transport until its routing benefit exceeds roughly double the best intra-trap alternative yields batching gains that are independent of the S3 cost assumption.
  • Fault-tolerant surface-code workloads run correctly and quickly with a moderate number of gate zones per trap, so future hardware should not over-provision computation zones.
  • Reducing the number and duration of transports suppresses both transport errors and decoherence, so execution-time savings and fidelity improvements compound rather than trade off.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the SIMD transport abstraction likely carries over to other atom-shuttling platforms, such as neutral-atom arrays with movable tweezers, wherever a group of atoms can be displaced coherently; the paper does not discuss this connection.
  • Editorial inference: the time-sliced synchronization recipe (shortest-remaining-time inside the cheap transport mode, longest-remaining-time before the expensive mode) is a general policy for any device with two exclusive, latency-disparate mechanisms, and could be tested in isolation.
  • Editorial inference: a straightforward ablation would re-run the same benchmarks with each S3 instruction decomposed into serial per-ion shifts; the gap between that run and the reported results quantifies exactly how much of the 3.82x depends on the single-shot grouped-shift assumption.
  • Editorial inference: even if hardware never delivers single-shot grouped shifts, the JT-SIMD batching and time-sliced scheduling may recover much of the gain, because the example in Section 5 attributes a 982-to-732 microsecond improvement to batching alone.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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. This paper introduces FluxTrap, a compiler framework for QCCD trapped-ion architectures with 2D junctions. The core proposal is a SIMD-inspired abstraction consisting of two instruction classes: S3 for grouped intra-trap shifts and JT-SIMD for globally synchronized inter-trap junction transfers, together with a SIMD-enriched position graph that encodes gate-zone constraints, transport synchronization, and configurable topology. Two compilation passes, SIMD aggregation and SIMD scheduling, are then evaluated in a discrete-event simulator on NISQ benchmarks (QAOA, RCA, BV, VQE) and on surface-code FTQC workloads (QFT-20, QSIM-20). The paper reports execution-time reductions up to 3.82x, fidelity improvements of several orders of magnitude, and an FTQC analysis across code distances and gate-zone densities.

Significance. If the cost model is valid, this is a useful contribution: it reframes QCCD transport as a SIMD problem, provides a concrete ISA-style abstraction, gives a scheduling policy with a clear intra/inter-trap decision rule, and offers actionable co-design guidance for gate-zone density and trap topology. The worked examples in Figures 6 and 7 are internally consistent, and the FTQC evaluation uses standard tools (Stim and Pymatching), which is a strength. The central quantitative claim, however, rests on an unvalidated hardware assumption about grouped intra-trap shifts: the simulator treats each S3 instruction as a single 58-microsecond, 99.978%-fidelity intra-trap shift. Since S3 aggregation is the main intra-trap speedup mechanism, this assumption is load-bearing for the 3.82x and fidelity results. The paper currently provides neither hardware evidence nor a sensitivity analysis for this cost model, so the reported numbers should be read as upper bounds.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1 / Section 6.1] The de facto cost model for S3 instructions is load-bearing but unvalidated. Section 3.1 defines S3 as an instruction that moves "one or more groups of ions" concurrently, but the evaluation in Section 6.1 computes execution time using the instruction durations in Table 1, which lists only a single-ion intra-trap shift of 58 us and fidelity 99.978%. The simulator therefore implicitly charges a width-w grouped shift the same latency and fidelity as a one-ion shift. The cited hardware sources [12, 24] report individual transport operations, not arbitrary segmented shifts, and the paper provides no control-level analysis, pulse schedule, or experimental citation showing that a grouped shift is issued as one instruction with unchanged per-ion latency and error. If grouped shifts require serialization, settling time between segments, or incur extra heating/crosstalk (thermal constraints are acknowledged in Section 2.1), every S3 instruction is undercosted. Because S3 aggregation is the primary intra-trap speedup mechanism, the headline 3.82x reduction in Table 3 (RCA-60, L=14) and the multi-order-of-magnitude fidelity improvements are upper bounds. Please either provide hardware or control-level evidence for the S3 cost model, or add a sensitivity analysis that scales S3 latency and error rate with width and reports the serialization or error-inflation factor at which the claimed speedups would disappear.
  2. [Section 5.1, Eq. (2)] The scheduler's intra-versus-inter switching rule is governed by the factor 2 in Eq. (2), yet no sensitivity analysis is reported for this threshold. The text justifies the factor only by saying inter-trap operations "typically incur 2-3x higher latency," but the actual latency ratio in Table 1 is about 4.3x for shifts (250 us vs. 58 us) and 2.5x for swaps (500 us vs. 200 us), so the fixed factor of 2 is not clearly derived from the stated hardware parameters. Similarly, the cost weight alpha = 0.3 in Eq. (1) is fixed in the implementation, and the "lookahead into operations over the next few timesteps" mentioned in Section 5.1 is never defined. These parameters directly control how aggressively JT-SIMD instructions are batched, which is the mechanism behind the reported speedups. Please calibrate these parameters to the Table 1 latencies or sweep them across benchmarks; without this, the quantitative results could be an artifact of parameter choice rather than of the proposed algorithm.
  3. [Section 6.1] The experimental protocol does not provide enough information to assess the robustness of the headline numbers. QAOA is run on randomly generated 3-regular graphs and BV on random secret strings, but no number of instances, standard deviations, or medians are reported; Tables 3 and 9 report single values for each benchmark. In addition, both baselines are "reconstructed" and "strengthened" by the authors (Section 2.2), and no code or artifact is released. For a compiler paper whose main claim is a quantitative speedup, the baseline adaptations need to be concrete enough to reimplement, and the random benchmarks need instance counts and variance measures. Please either release the simulator and baseline implementations or provide a detailed algorithmic description of the SIMD post-pass added to each baseline, and report error bars or instance-level spreads for all random benchmarks.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The column headers "DxD (Grid Shape)" and "Grid Layout" are not defined in the text, and the values in the table are visually misaligned; please define D and reformat the table so each row has clear entries for qubit count, grid dimensions, number of 1D traps, gate zones per trap, and trap capacity.
  2. [Figures 9(a1)-(d2)] The axis labels in Figure 9 are rendered with broken exponents and spacing in the manuscript text (e.g., "10 1", "2 × 10 1"); please fix the mathematical typesetting so the axes are legible.
  3. [Section 6.3] The FTQC evaluation omits syndrome extraction time with the comment that it is "roughly proportional to the logical gate latency"; this is a nontrivial modeling assumption and should be either justified with a reference or bounded with a sensitivity analysis.
  4. [Abstract / Section 6.2] The abstract states that FluxTrap "improves fidelity by several orders of magnitude," but several rows in Table 3 show fidelity improvements of only 1.0-1.3x (e.g., BV-20 and BV-40). Please qualify the claim as "up to" several orders of magnitude to match the data.
  5. [Section 4.2] The cost function in Eq. (1) uses a gate-zone assignment that is fixed during compilation with reassignment only under "excessive routing delays"; the criteria for triggering reassignment are never specified, which makes the heuristic under-specified for reproduction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported speedups are simulator-based comparisons against external baselines, and no prediction is equivalent by construction to a fitted input or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its evaluation claims. FluxTrap defines S3 and JT-SIMD instructions, constructs them via a zone-aware cost function (Eq. 1), and schedules them via a hierarchical decision rule (Eq. 2). The reported execution times and fidelities are then computed by a discrete-event simulator using operation latencies and fidelities from cited hardware sources (Table 1), not from the cost function itself. The cost function guides schedule construction but is not fitted to benchmark outcomes; alpha = 0.3 is a stated implementation choice, not a fitted parameter. The S3 grouped-shift cost assumption (charging one 58 us intra-trap shift per S3 instruction) is an unvalidated hardware-modeling assumption and a genuine correctness/validation risk, but it is not circular: if the assumption is false, the numbers would change, which means they are not true by construction. Self-citations in the paper, including [27] (SABRE, co-authored by Y. Ding) and [34] (QASMBench, co-authored by A. Li), are used only as background or benchmark sources and are not load-bearing premises of the central claims. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is merely renamed. Therefore the paper does not exhibit circular reasoning under the specified criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The evaluation depends on accepted QCCD hardware constraints from cited experiments plus several modeling assumptions specific to this paper. The main free parameters are two heuristic constants in the cost and switching rules, plus an unspecified lookahead horizon. The most fragile invented abstraction is the S3 grouped-shift instruction, whose latency and error behavior are assumed equal to those of a single shift; JT-SIMD is better grounded because global junction synchronization is cited from hardware literature.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha (two-qubit spacing weight) = 0.3
    Introduced in Eq. (1) to weigh the inter-qubit distance term for two-qubit gates; chosen in the implementation, not derived, and no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • JT-SIMD switching threshold factor = 2
    Eq. (2) triggers inter-trap transport only when its projected cost reduction is more than twice the intra-trap alternative; chosen by hand, no sensitivity study is reported.
  • lookahead horizon = not specified
    Section 5.1 says the scheduler uses a lookahead over 'the next few timesteps' to score JT-SIMD classes, but the horizon is not stated and can materially change scheduling decisions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Global junction synchronization: at each cycle only one transport type and direction is broadcast across all junctions, and intra-trap and inter-trap transports are mutually exclusive.
    Stated in Section 2.1 and shown in Figure 2(b), based on cited hardware demonstrations [13,24]. The scheduler and simulator enforce this constraint.
  • domain assumption Gates can execute only in designated gate zones, with at most one ion per zone to avoid crosstalk.
    Introduced in Section 2.1 and encoded in the gate-zone-aware cost function of Section 4.2.
  • domain assumption The latency and fidelity values in Table 1 apply to all instructions, including the newly proposed grouped S3 and JT-SIMD operations.
    Table 1 is assembled from published hardware data [12,13,24], but the paper does not experimentally validate that grouped shifts have the same per-ion latency and error behavior.
  • domain assumption The discrete-event simulator in Section 6 faithfully represents physical execution, including control exclusivity, thermal limits, and operation latencies.
    All headline results come from this simulator; no hardware experiment or independent simulator cross-check is included.
  • domain assumption The fidelity model F = F1Q * F2Q * Ftransport * Fdecoh with Tcoh = 600s captures the dominant error channels.
    Given in Section 6.1; the decoherence time from single-qubit memory experiments [38] is extrapolated to large multi-zone workloads without discussion.
invented entities (2)
  • Segmented Intra-trap Shift SIMD (S3) instruction class
    purpose: Models grouped intra-trap ion shifts as single SIMD-style instructions.
    No hardware evidence is cited that an arbitrary grouped shift can be issued as one instruction with no extra control overhead; the simulator assumes this cost model.
  • Global Junction Transfer SIMD (JT-SIMD) instruction class independent evidence
    purpose: Models globally synchronized junction transfers through 18 predefined direction and type subclasses.
    The underlying global synchronization constraint is supported by cited hardware demonstrations [13,24], although the 18-subclass instruction encoding is the authors' abstraction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TrapSIMD: SIMD-Aware Compiler Optimization for 2D Trapped-Ion Quantum Machines." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YT34ZZAG

@misc{pith2026250417886,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TrapSIMD: SIMD-Aware Compiler Optimization for 2D Trapped-Ion Quantum Machines},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YT34ZZAG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17886}
}
abstract

Modular trapped-ion (TI) architectures offer a scalable quantum computing (QC) platform, with native transport behaviors that closely resemble the Single Instruction Multiple Data (SIMD) paradigm. We present FluxTrap, a SIMD-aware compiler framework that establishes a hardware-software co-design interface for TI systems. FluxTrap introduces a novel abstraction that unifies SIMD-style instructions -- including segmented intra-trap shift SIMD (S3) and global junction transfer SIMD (JT-SIMD) operations -- with a SIMD-enriched architectural graph, capturing key features such as transport synchronization, gate-zone locality, and topological constraints. It applies two passes -- SIMD aggregation and scheduling -- to coordinate grouped ion transport and gate execution within architectural constraints. On NISQ benchmarks, FluxTrap reduces execution time by up to $3.82 \times$ and improves fidelity by several orders of magnitude. It also scales to fault-tolerant workloads under diverse hardware configurations, providing feedback for future TI hardware design.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17886 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall Flow of Our Compiler 2.1 2D Trapped-Ion Hardware Architecture This section provides key hardware background on the QCCD architecture used in modern TI quantum processors[12, 24]. The system combines 1D ion traps with 2D junctions to support scalable qubit transport, and introduces specific op￾erational constraints that shape how programs must be com￾piled and scheduled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a). This implicit transport is accounted for in the gate’s effective latency. As summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of SIMD Architecture (into empty sites) from swap (between occupied sites) opera￾tions. While this model is useful, it remains incomplete in capturing full hardware semantics. Here, we introduce three key extensions to build a SIMD-enriched coupling graph abstraction. 1. Dynamic Switchable Position Graph: The conflict be￾tween different JT-SIMD instructions and that between JT￾SIMD and intra-trap operations… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: SIMD-Aware S3 Formation with Position Reuse a potential conflict. Rather than resolving this greedily, we initiate a timeline-aware forward search to explore viable shift sequences. Starting with Q3, we trace a path where Q2 and Q1 can shift ahead of it in the same dir…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Alleviating Gate Zone Congestion via Spacing￾Aware Prioritization 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Better SIMD Scheduling via Optimized Intra–Inter Transport Switching: This example illustrates the benefit of our compiler’s decision rule, which activates JT-SIMD instructions only when their routing gain exceeds that of intra-trap alternatives, enabling more effectiv…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Improved Execution via Time-Sliced SIMD Syn￾chronization: This example demonstrates how our fine￾grained scheduler overlaps operations by leveraging real￾time context. (a1) and (a2) show the circuit and initial layout. The baseline plan (b1, b2) follows depth-based sch…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of Inter-Trap Transport Performance 6.2 Results for NISQ Applications We first compare FluxTrap with SHAPER* under two 1D trap capacities (𝑁𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑝 = 8 and 𝑁𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑝 = 14), focusing on execution time (𝑇𝑒𝑥𝑒 ) and fidelity. To better understand the source of improvem…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a1)–(d1) show execution time breakdowns for QAOA, RCA, BV, and VQE, highlighting intra- vs. inter-trap transport. (a2)–(d2) show fidelity breakdowns into two-qubit gate, transport (shift/swap) errors and decoherence errors. Inter-trap Scheduling Comparison with QCCDsi…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a), a surface code with a distance of 11 achieves a logical error rate of 10−8 , which meets the LER requirement of our benchmarks. Next, we analyze the impact of gate zone density on execution time for surface codes with distances of 3, 7, and 11, using the QFT-20 a…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Sensitivity analysis under varying hardware pa￾rameters. 𝑁𝑔𝑧 denotes the number of gate zones per 1D trap; 𝐿 denotes the 1D trap capacity. Impact of Hardware Topology Connectivity. We further explore how grid connectivity influences performance by varying 1D trap capa…

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. Efficient LLM-Generated Shuttling Compilers for Complex Trapped-Ion Architectures

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Unmodified frontier LLMs generate correct, competitive trapped-ion shuttling compilers from specs, cutting timesteps up to 76% versus hand-crafted baselines and exposing large connectivity effects.

  2. Quantum Compiler Design for Qubit Mapping and Routing: A Cross-Architectural Survey of Superconducting, Trapped-Ion, and Neutral Atom Systems

    quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A cross-architectural survey that categorizes qubit mapping and routing compilers for superconducting, trapped-ion, and neutral atom quantum hardware.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor

    Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fernando GSL Brandao, David A Buell, et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature, 574(7779):505–510, 2019

    2019

  2. [2]

    Super- conducting quantum computing: a review

    He-Liang Huang, Dachao Wu, Daojin Fan, and Xiaobo Zhu. Super- conducting quantum computing: a review. Science China Information Sciences, 63:1–32, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    The future of quantum computing with superconducting qubits

    Sergey Bravyi, Oliver Dial, Jay M Gambetta, Darío Gil, and Zaira Nazario. The future of quantum computing with superconducting qubits. Journal of Applied Physics, 132(16), 2022

    2022

  4. [4]

    Trapped-ion quantum computing: Progress and challenges

    Colin D Bruzewicz, John Chiaverini, Robert McConnell, and Jeremy M Sage. Trapped-ion quantum computing: Progress and challenges. Applied Physics Reviews, 6(2), 2019

    2019

  5. [5]

    Benchmarking a trapped-ion quantum computer with 29 algorithmic qubits

    Jwo-Sy Chen, Erik Nielsen, Matthew Ebert, Volkan Inlek, Kenneth Wright, Vandiver Chaplin, Andrii Maksymov, Eduardo Páez, Amrit Poudel, Peter Maunz, et al. Benchmarking a trapped-ion quantum computer with 29 algorithmic qubits. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.05071, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Linear optical quan- tum computing with photonic qubits

    Pieter Kok, William J Munro, Kae Nemoto, Timothy C Ralph, Jonathan P Dowling, and Gerard J Milburn. Linear optical quan- tum computing with photonic qubits. Reviews of modern physics , 79(1):135–174, 2007

    2007

  7. [7]

    Blueprint for a scalable photonic fault-tolerant quantum computer

    J Eli Bourassa, Rafael N Alexander, Michael Vasmer, Ashlesha Patil, Ilan Tzitrin, Takaya Matsuura, Daiqin Su, Ben Q Baragiola, Saikat Guha, Guillaume Dauphinais, et al. Blueprint for a scalable photonic fault-tolerant quantum computer. Quantum, 5:392, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays

    Dolev Bluvstein, Simon J Evered, Alexandra A Geim, Sophie H Li, Hengyun Zhou, Tom Manovitz, Sepehr Ebadi, Madelyn Cain, Marcin Kalinowski, Dominik Hangleiter, et al. Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays. Nature, 626(7997):58–65, 2024

    2024

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Aquila: Quera’s 256-qubit neutral-atom quantum computer

    Jonathan Wurtz, Alexei Bylinskii, Boris Braverman, Jesse Amato-Grill, Sergio H Cantu, Florian Huber, Alexander Lukin, Fangli Liu, Phillip Weinberg, John Long, et al. Aquila: Quera’s 256-qubit neutral-atom quantum computer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11727, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Quantum computations with cold trapped ions

    Juan I Cirac and Peter Zoller. Quantum computations with cold trapped ions. Physical review letters, 74(20):4091, 1995

    1995

  3. [11]

    Architecture for a large-scale ion-trap quantum computer

    David Kielpinski, Chris Monroe, and David J Wineland. Architecture for a large-scale ion-trap quantum computer. Nature, 417(6890):709– 711, 2002

    2002

  4. [12]

    A race-track trapped-ion quantum processor

    Steven A Moses, Charles H Baldwin, Michael S Allman, R Ancona, L Ascarrunz, C Barnes, J Bartolotta, B Bjork, P Blanchard, M Bohn, et al. A race-track trapped-ion quantum processor. Physical Review X, 13(4):041052, 2023. 13

    2023

  5. [13]

    Scalable multispecies ion transport in a grid-based surface-electrode trap

    Robert D Delaney, Lucas R Sletten, Matthew J Cich, Brian Estey, Maya I Fabrikant, David Hayes, Ian M Hoffman, James Hostetter, Christopher Langer, Steven A Moses, et al. Scalable multispecies ion transport in a grid-based surface-electrode trap. Physical Review X, 14(4):041028, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    A high-fidelity quantum matter-link between ion-trap microchip modules

    M Akhtar, F Bonus, FR Lebrun-Gallagher, NI Johnson, M Siegele- Brown, S Hong, SJ Hile, SA Kulmiya, Sebastian Weidt, and WK Hensinger. A high-fidelity quantum matter-link between ion-trap microchip modules. Nature communications, 14(1):531, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Bruzewicz, John Chiaverini, Robert McConnell, and Jeremy M

    Colin D. Bruzewicz, John Chiaverini, Robert McConnell, and Jeremy M. Sage. Trapped-ion quantum computing: Progress and challenges. Applied Physics Reviews , 6(2), May 2019. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10. 1063/1.5088164, doi:10.1063/1.5088164

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    How to wire a 1000- qubit trapped-ion quantum computer

    M Malinowski, DTC Allcock, and CJ Ballance. How to wire a 1000- qubit trapped-ion quantum computer. PRX Quantum , 4(4):040313, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fernando G

    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...

    2019

  10. [18]

    Chow, and Jay M

    Abhinav Kandala, Antonio Mezzacapo, Kristan Temme, Maika Takita, Markus Brink, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta. Hardware- efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets. Nature, 549(7671):242–246, September 2017. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10....

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    Transversality and lattice surgery: Exploring realistic routes toward coupled logical qubits with trapped-ion quantum processors

    M Gutiérrez, M Müller, and Alejandro Bermúdez. Transversality and lattice surgery: Exploring realistic routes toward coupled logical qubits with trapped-ion quantum processors. Physical Review A, 99(2):022330, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    A survey of parallel computer architectures

    Ralph Duncan. A survey of parallel computer architectures. Computer, 23(2):5–16, 1990

    1990

  13. [21]

    Efficient compilation for shuttling trapped-ion machines via the position graph architectural abstraction

    Bao Bach, Ilya Safro, and Ed Younis. Efficient compilation for shuttling trapped-ion machines via the position graph architectural abstraction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12470, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Architecting noisy intermediate-scale trapped ion quan- tum computers

    Prakash Murali, Dripto M Debroy, Kenneth R Brown, and Margaret Martonosi. Architecting noisy intermediate-scale trapped ion quan- tum computers. In 2020 ACM/IEEE 47th Annual International Sympo- sium on Computer Architecture (ISCA) , pages 529–542. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Zsim: Fast and accurate mi- croarchitectural simulation of thousand-core systems

    Daniel Sanchez and Christos Kozyrakis. Zsim: Fast and accurate mi- croarchitectural simulation of thousand-core systems. ACM SIGARCH Computer architecture news, 41(3):475–486, 2013

    2013

  16. [24]

    Demonstration of the trapped-ion quantum ccd computer architecture

    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. Demonstration of the trapped-ion quantum ccd computer architecture. Nature, 592(7853):209–213, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Wright, K

    K. Wright, K. M. Beck, S. Debnath, J. M. Amini, Y. Nam, N. Grzesiak, J.-S. Chen, N. C. Pisenti, M. Chmielewski, C. Collins, K. M. Hudek, J. Mizrahi, J. D. Wong-Campos, S. Allen, J. Apisdorf, P. Solomon, M. Williams, A. M. Ducore, A. Blinov, S. M. Kreikemeier, V. Chap- lin, M. ...

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    Reliable transport through a microfabricated x-junction surface-electrode ion trap

    Kenneth Wright, Jason M Amini, Daniel L Faircloth, Curtis Volin, S Charles Doret, Harley Hayden, C-S Pai, David W Landgren, Douglas Denison, Tyler Killian, Richart E Slusher, and Alexa W Harter. Reliable transport through a microfabricated x-junction surface-electrode ion trap...

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    Tackling the qubit mapping problem for nisq-era quantum devices, 2019

    Gushu Li, Yufei Ding, and Yuan Xie. Tackling the qubit mapping problem for nisq-era quantum devices, 2019. URL: https://arxiv.org/ abs/1809.02573, arXiv:1809.02573

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing, 2023

    Qiskit contributors. Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing, 2023. doi:10.5281/zenodo.2573505

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    Yukai Wu, Sheng-Tao Wang, and L.-M. Duan. Noise analysis for high- fidelity quantum entangling gates in an anharmonic linear paul trap. Phys. Rev. A , 97:062325, Jun 2018. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.97.062325, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.97.062325

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    A new quantum ripple-carry addition circuit

    Steven A Cuccaro, Thomas G Draper, Samuel A Kutin, and David Petrie Moulton. A new quantum ripple-carry addition circuit. arXiv preprint quant-ph/0410184, 2004. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0410184, doi:10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/0410184

    2004 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    Study of adaptative derivative-assemble pseudo-trotter ansatzes in vqe through qiskit api

    Max Alteg, Baptiste Chevalier, Octave Mestoudjian, and Johan-Luca Rossi. Study of adaptative derivative-assemble pseudo-trotter ansatzes in vqe through qiskit api. 2022. arXiv:2210.15438

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Exploring variational quantum eigen- solver ansatzes for the long-range xy model

    Jia-Bin You, Dax Enshan Koh, Jian Feng Kong, Wen-Jun Ding, Ching Eng Png, and Lin Wu. Exploring variational quantum eigen- solver ansatzes for the long-range xy model. 2021. arXiv:2109. 00288

    2021

  25. [33]

    Supermarq: A scalable quantum benchmark suite

    Teague Tomesh, Pranav Gokhale, Victory Omole, Gokul Subramanian Ravi, Kaitlin N Smith, Joshua Viszlai, Xin-Chuan Wu, Nikos Hardav- ellas, Margaret R Martonosi, and Frederic T Chong. Supermarq: A scalable quantum benchmark suite. In 2022 IEEE International Sym- posium on High-P...

    2022

  26. [34]

    Qasm- bench: A low-level quantum benchmark suite for nisq evaluation and simulation

    Ang Li, Samuel Stein, Sriram Krishnamoorthy, and James Ang. Qasm- bench: A low-level quantum benchmark suite for nisq evaluation and simulation. ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 4(2):1–26, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Fowler, Matteo Mariantoni, John M

    Austin G. Fowler, Matteo Mariantoni, John M. Martinis, and Andrew N. Cleland. Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum compu- tation. Phys. Rev. A, 86:032324, Sep 2012. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.86.032324, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.86.032324

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    Andersen, Markus Ansmann, Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Abraham Asfaw, Juan Atalaya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C

    Rajeev Acharya, Igor Aleiner, Richard Allen, Trond I. Andersen, Markus Ansmann, Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Abraham Asfaw, Juan Atalaya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C. Bardin, Joao Basso, Andreas Bengtsson, Sergio Boixo, Gina Bortoli, Alexandre Bourassa, Jenna Bovaird, Leon ...

  29. [37]

    Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond

    John Preskill. Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond. Quan- tum, 2:79, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Duan, Dahyun Yum, and Kihwan Kim

    Ye Wang, Mark Um, Junhua Zhang, Shuoming An, Ming Lyu, Jing- Ning Zhang, L.-M. Duan, Dahyun Yum, and Kihwan Kim. Single- qubit quantum memory exceeding ten-minute coherence time. Nature Photonics, 11(10):646–650, September 2017. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10. 1038/s41566-017-0007-...

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    Universal quantum computation with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas

    Sergey Bravyi and Alexei Kitaev. Universal quantum computation with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 71(2):022316, 2005

    2005

  32. [40]

    Magic state distillation: Not as costly as you think

    Daniel Litinski. Magic state distillation: Not as costly as you think. Quantum, 3:205, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Magic-state distillation with low overhead

    Sergey Bravyi and Jeongwan Haah. Magic-state distillation with low overhead. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics , 86(5):052329, 2012

    2012

  34. [42]

    Bennink, Justin G

    Tyler Leblond, Ryan S. Bennink, Justin G. Lietz, and Christopher M. Seck. Tiscc: A surface code compiler and resource estimator for trapped-ion processors. In Proceedings of the SC ’23 Workshops of the International Conference on High Performance Computing, Network, Storage, a...

    2023

  35. [43]

    Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator

    Craig Gidney. Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator. Quantum, 5:497, July 2021. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-07-06-497 , doi:10.22331/q-2021-07-06-497

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    Pymatching: A python package for decoding quantum codes with minimum-weight perfect matching

    Oscar Higgott. Pymatching: A python package for decoding quantum codes with minimum-weight perfect matching. ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 3(3):1–16, 2022. 15

    2022

  37. [2022]

    URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.06431, arXiv:2207.06431

    arXiv

  38. [2023]

    URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3624062.3624214, doi:10.1145/ 3624062.3624214

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.