Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 66 references

Stacking the Odds: Full-Stack Quantum System Design Space Exploration

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that quantum circuit fidelity improves substantially when compilation choices (layout, routing, optimization level) and hardware properties (connectivity density, topology, noise character) are chosen jointly, with…

desk verdict Broad and useful co-design sweep with an honest reproduction package, but the headline numbers rest on uncalibrated crosstalk parameters and the abstract overstates the methodology. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02782 v1 pith:BVAKRC2U submitted 2025-06-03 quant-ph cs.ET

Hila Safi , Medina Bandic , Christoph Niedermeier , Carmen G. Almudever , Sebastian Feld , Wolfgang Mauerer This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.ET MSC 81P68 PACS 03.67.Lx
keywords DesignSpaceExplorationhardware-softwareco-designquantumcircuitcompilationcrosstalkmodelingconnectivitydensityqubitroutingNISQdevicesfidelity
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 tries to establish that executing a quantum circuit well is a full-stack problem: the compiler choices (initial layout, routing heuristic, optimization level) and the device's physical properties (topology, connectivity density, noise character) interact so strongly that neither can be tuned in isolation. Through a systematic design space exploration over 30 benchmark circuits, five noise models, two topologies, and several compiler configurations, the authors find that connectivity density is the dominant factor for both fidelity and circuit depth, with most circuits converging near a connectivity density of 0.3. They report that the 'shared qubit' crosstalk model is consistently the most damaging, that the heavy-hex topology is more crosstalk-resilient than a grid-like Sycamore layout, and that increasing back-end size has little effect. Their practical bottom line is that SABRE routing combined with optimization level 1 offers the best cost-performance trade-off, and that adding more circuit transformation passes beyond a well-aligned configuration yields diminishing returns.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a layered design space exploration that sweeps compiler parameters (layout methods SABRE, Dense, Trivial; routing SABRE and Stochastic; optimization levels 0-3; five additional pass-manager setups) against device parameters (heavy-hex vs. Sycamore topology, connectivity density c = NC/NC,max, back-end sizes, and three crosstalk models plus thermal relaxation and depolarisation). Performance is scored with the cost improvement metric C = Cin/Cout, which combines circuit depth, gate counts, and single- and two-qubit gate fidelities with a per-depth decoherence factor K. Fidelity under crosstalk is computed analytically via harmonic-mean fidelity terms (e.g., C01,02) for the shared-qubit, simultaneous-execution, and proximity-based models.

What would settle it

Compile the same benchmark circuits (e.g., QFT q=64, VQE q=32, Shor q=35) and run them on a real device or a hardware-calibrated noisy simulator under two conditions: (1) the paper's analytic shared-qubit crosstalk model, and (2) measured device noise with the same connectivity density. If the shared-qubit model does not emerge as the most fidelity-damaging, or if fidelity does not converge near connectivity density 0.3, the paper's central rankings and its connectivity guidance are contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that choosing the right software strategies and tailoring hardware properties significantly enhances the fidelity of quantum circuit executions. The authors establish that connectivity density is the dominant factor influencing both fidelity and circuit depth, that fidelity and depth converge at roughly 0.3 connectivity independent of back-end size, that the shared-qubit crosstalk model inflicts the greatest fidelity loss while the simultaneous-execution model stabilizes beyond connectivity 0.3, and that heavy-hex topology is more robust to crosstalk than the grid-like Sycamore topology. They further find that SABRE-based layout and routing with optimization level 1 provides the best compromise between performance and compile time, that additional optimisation passes give marginal or no gains once a good configuration is aligned, and that quantum error correction circuits exhibit similar sensitivities to layout and connectivity, indicating co-design matters for fault-tolerant systems as well.

Load-bearing premise

The whole evaluation rests on analytic noise models that assume independent gate errors and use crosstalk amplification factors n and k whose values are never specified; if real hardware crosstalk behaves differently, the quantitative rankings and derived guidelines could be invalid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Standard transpilation should treat mapping, routing, optimization, and connectivity as a joint configuration problem, since aligned choices improve fidelity beyond isolated tuning.
  • Hardware roadmaps can target a connectivity density around 0.3 as a saturation point; pushing to full connectivity adds little fidelity or depth benefit for most circuits.
  • Mitigation strategies should prioritize protecting against the shared-qubit crosstalk scenario, which the models show is the most fidelity-damaging.
  • Heavy-hex-like topologies are the safer default for crosstalk-sensitive workloads, while larger back-end size alone is not an effective fidelity lever.
  • SABRE routing with optimization level 1 is the recommended default; more aggressive circuit transformation passes beyond that give diminishing returns.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I would bet that the shared-qubit crosstalk guidance can be tested directly on hardware: serializing two-qubit gates that share a qubit should measurably raise fidelity if the model is right, turning a simulation finding into an actionable scheduler rule.
  • The connectivity-0.3 convergence suggests a concrete design specification for near-term processors: specify a connectivity density target rather than raw qubit count, potentially saving fabrication cost and complexity.
  • If the QEC sensitivity result transfers to real error-corrected devices, surface-code and other topological code layouts should be co-designed with the underlying coupling graph, extending the paper's co-design message into fault-tolerant architecture.
  • The cost improvement metric could be repurposed as an online compiler selection criterion: choose layout, routing, and optimization level by a fast pre-execution cost estimate, effectively making design space exploration an adaptive compilation step.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a layered design-space exploration for quantum circuit execution. It sweeps device parameters (topology, connectivity density, back-end size, noise models) and compilation parameters (layout method, routing technique, optimization level, pass-manager setups) across a benchmark suite that includes standard algorithms and quantum error correction circuits. Fidelity is estimated analytically from noise models in Section 3.1.2, and compilation performance is aggregated with the cost improvement metric of Section 3.2.1. The headline findings are that connectivity density is the dominant factor driving fidelity and depth, the shared-qubit crosstalk model is the most damaging noise mode, heavy-hex topology is more robust than Sycamore, fidelity and depth converge near connectivity 0.3, and SABRE routing with optimization level 1 offers the best cost-performance trade-off.

Significance. If the results are robust, the paper provides a useful full-stack benchmark study and actionable co-design guidance. Its strengths include a wide benchmark set covering variational, arithmetic, simulation, and QEC circuits; a structured, layered parameter sweep; and a stated reproduction package with a Zenodo snapshot. The general conclusion that hardware-aware compilation and connectivity-aware device design improve execution fidelity is well supported by prior independent work cited in Section 2. However, the quantitative rankings and practical thresholds are produced by analytic noise models whose free parameters are never specified or calibrated, so the specific quantitative claims currently have no demonstrated connection to real hardware behavior. This makes the paper's central quantitative contributions preliminary rather than established, although the direction of the qualitative claims is consistent with existing literature.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1.2, Eqs. (3)-(6)] The crosstalk amplification factors n and k are never assigned values or calibrated. The text describes n as a 'degree of crosstalk amplification' and k as an 'amplification factor,' but no numeric range, hardware measurement, or physical derivation is given. Since the relative severity of the three crosstalk models and the convergence threshold near connectivity 0.3 are read off plots generated with these formulas, the central quantitative rankings are not yet robust. Please provide physically motivated ranges for n and k and a sensitivity analysis over these ranges, or calibrate the models to a hardware crosstalk dataset. Without this, the claimed rankings (shared-qubit worst, heavy-hex more robust, convergence at connectivity 0.3) are model artifacts rather than empirical findings.
  2. [Section 3.1.2, Eqs. (7)-(11) and Fig. 2 caption] The fidelity estimates multiply per-gate fidelities across the circuit, which assumes independent errors. Crosstalk, by the paper's own definition, is a correlated error process. The Fig. 2 caption acknowledges that 'the fidelities are model-estimated and may introduce bias or approximation artifacts, particularly in regimes with correlated errors,' yet the main conclusions about shared-qubit severity and topology robustness are drawn directly from these estimates. Please either validate a subset of the conclusions against a correlated-noise simulation or measured hardware data, or explicitly and consistently restrict the conclusions to the model class used. As it stands, the quantitative comparisons between the crosstalk models and between topologies are not connected to any externally grounded error model.
  3. [Section 3.2.1, Eqs. (15)-(17) and Section 4.2] The compilation-layer rankings (SABRE+level-1 best, marginal gains from level 2, no benefit from additional passes) are obtained with the cost improvement metric using fixed constants F1q=0.9982, F2q=0.9765, and K=0.995. There is no sensitivity analysis with respect to these constants, and no error bars or statistical dispersion across the 30 benchmarks is reported. Because the ordering of configurations is derived from an aggregate metric, different plausible values of the fidelity constants could change the ranking. Please provide a sensitivity analysis and report the distribution of results across benchmarks, rather than only aggregate or per-facet plots.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1 vs. Table 2 and Section 4.2] Section 3.1 states that the fixed compiler settings include optimization level 3, while Table 2 and Figure 11 explore levels 0, 1, and 2. Please clarify whether level 3 was used in the device-layer experiments and why it is not part of the compilation sweep.
  2. [Section 3.1.2, Eq. (4)] The term FOm appears in the product in Eq. (4), but its definition is incomplete: the bullet text says 'Fidelity of the single-qubit operation on qubit .' with an empty placeholder. Please define FOm and specify its index.
  3. [Section 3.1.2, Eqs. (3)-(6)] The notation for the crosstalk models is occasionally inconsistent, with n and k described in prose but not assigned default values anywhere. Even if a full calibration is deferred to future work, please state explicit default values and ranges so that the reader can reproduce the figures.
  4. [Figure 12 and Section 5] Figure 12 shows SABRE|2|SABRE as the best-performing combination, while the conclusion recommends SABRE routing with optimization level 1. Please explain how the compile-time trade-off justifies demoting level 2 despite its higher cost-improvement frequency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: compilation rankings come from external Qiskit transpilation evaluated by fully disclosed equations; the paper's several self-citations (benchmark suite, cost metric, 0.3-convergence corroboration) are non-load-bearing. The unspecified crosstalk exponents n and k are a calibration gap, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (co-design choices materially affect fidelity; connectivity density is dominant; SABRE with optimization level 1 is the best cost-performance choice) are outputs of a transparent pipeline: an external tool (Qiskit) transpiles public benchmark circuits, producing the depth and gate counts, and the paper's own Section 3.1.2 models (Eqs. 3-11) convert those into fidelities using equations stated in the paper. The compilation rankings of Section 4.2 are read off the fully disclosed cost-improvement metric (Eqs. 15-17, with Starmon-5 default weights F1q=0.9982, F2q=0.9765, K=0.995). No ranking is an input smuggled back as an output: whether SABRE beats Stochastic on a given benchmark, whether depth converges near connectivity 0.3, and whether heavy-hex beats Sycamore are determined by the external transpiler's behavior, not by the paper's definitions. The self-citations are real but non-load-bearing: the benchmark suite and primary cost metric come from the authors' own prior work ([6]-[8]), but the metric is re-stated completely in this paper, the benchmarks are standard algorithms in a public repository, and the corroborating citation for the 0.3 convergence ([12]) merely duplicates the paper's own Figure 8. No uniqueness theorem or unverified prior result is imported as authority. The genuine weaknesses are flagged in the paper itself: the Figure 2 caption warns that 'the fidelities are model-estimated and may introduce bias or approximation artifacts, particularly in regimes with correlated errors,' and the crosstalk exponents n and k in Eqs. (3)-(6) are never assigned numeric values, so the quantitative severity ranking (shared-qubit worst, 0.3 threshold) is underdetermined by the model. This is a calibration/validity gap, not circularity: the outputs are not equal to the stated inputs by construction, and the non-trivial comparative content (which strategies reduce depth and gate counts on these benchmarks) comes from an external transpiler rather than from the paper's own equations. Hence score 2: minor, non-load-bearing self-citation, with the central claim retaining independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The paper's central results are generated by the noise models and metrics listed above. The crosstalk amplification factors and the cost-metric constants are free parameters that materially affect the ranking of configurations, and the crosstalk models are ad-hoc constructs not validated against hardware.

free parameters (5)
  • crosstalk amplification factor n
    Appears in the shared-qubit and proximity-based crosstalk fidelity formulas (Eqs. 3 and 6) as the 'degree of amplification'; no value is given in the paper, yet it controls the severity of the modeled fidelity loss.
  • simultaneous-execution amplification factor k
    Appears in the simultaneous-execution crosstalk formula (Eq. 4) as the amplification factor; no value is specified.
  • proximity radius rmax = 2
    Hand-chosen distance threshold for the proximity-based crosstalk model (Section 3.1.2); changing it would change which gates are penalized.
  • single- and two-qubit gate fidelities F1q, F2q = 0.9982, 0.9765
    Used in the cost improvement metric (Eqs. 16-17), taken from the Starmon-5 fact sheet; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • decoherence fidelity per depth unit K = 0.995
    Used in the cost improvement metric (Eqs. 16-17), taken as a default from Arline Benchmarks; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Circuit fidelity factorizes as a product of individual gate fidelities and per-qubit relaxation factors
    Assumed in Eqs. (9) and (11), which multiply fidelities across gates and qubits, ignoring correlated errors beyond the ad-hoc crosstalk terms.
  • ad hoc to paper The three crosstalk models (shared qubit, simultaneous execution, proximity) capture the essential physics of hardware crosstalk
    The functional forms in Eqs. (3)-(6) are introduced for this study and are not calibrated to experimental crosstalk measurements.
  • domain assumption Connectivity density can be varied by randomly adding edges to the hardware graph
    Used in Section 3.1.1 to sweep connectivity density c from 0.013895 to 1.0; such random graphs may not be physically realizable for planar or fixed-topology devices.
  • domain assumption The cost improvement metric C (Eq. 15) is a faithful proxy for solution quality
    The metric weights depth, gate counts, and fidelities with fixed constants, but no evidence is given that it correlates with actual output quality on real devices.
invented entities (3)
  • Shared qubit crosstalk model
    purpose: Adds a fidelity penalty whenever two two-qubit gates share a qubit, modeling correlated crosstalk.
    Defined in Section 3.1.2 (Eq. 3) with an unspecified amplification factor n; no experimental calibration or independent falsifiable prediction is given.
  • Simultaneous execution crosstalk model
    purpose: Adds a fidelity penalty when two two-qubit gates execute concurrently in the same layer.
    Defined in Section 3.1.2 (Eq. 4) with an unspecified amplification factor k; no independent evidence is provided.
  • Proximity based crosstalk model
    purpose: Adds a fidelity penalty when two two-qubit gates are within a spatial distance rmax.
    Defined in Section 3.1.2 (Eqs. 5-6) with rmax=2; the distance metric and threshold are chosen by hand, with no independent evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stacking the Odds: Full-Stack Quantum System Design Space Exploration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BVAKRC2U

@misc{pith2026250602782,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stacking the Odds: Full-Stack Quantum System Design Space Exploration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BVAKRC2U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02782}
}
read the original abstract

Design space exploration (DSE) plays an important role in optimising quantum circuit execution by systematically evaluating different configurations of compilation strategies and hardware settings. In this work, we study the impact of layout methods, qubit routing techniques, compiler optimization levels, and hardware-specific properties, including noise characteristics, topological structures, connectivity densities, and device sizes. By traversing these dimensions, we aim to understand how compilation choices interact with hardware features. A central question in our study is whether carefully selected device parameters and mapping strategies, including initial layouts and routing heuristics, can mitigate hardware-induced errors beyond standard error mitigation methods. Our results show that choosing the right software strategies (e.g., layout and routing) and tailoring hardware properties (e.g., reducing noise or leveraging connectivity) significantly enhances the fidelity of quantum circuit executions. We provide performance estimates using metrics such as circuit depth, gate count, and expected fidelity. These findings highlight the value of hardware-software co-design, especially as quantum systems scale and move toward error-corrected computing. Our simulations, though noisy, include quantum error correction (QEC) scenarios, revealing similar sensitivities to layout and connectivity. This suggests that co-design principles will be vital for integrating QEC in future devices. Overall, we offer practical guidance for co-optimizing mapping, routing, and hardware configuration in real-world quantum computing.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In: Proceedings of the Eight Annual ACM International Conference on Nanoscale Computing and Communication

    Li, G., Wu, A., Shi, Y., Javadi-Abhari, A., Ding, Y., Xie, Y.: On the co- design of quantum software and hardware. In: Proceedings of the Eight Annual ACM International Conference on Nanoscale Computing and Communication. NANOCOM ’21. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3477206.3477464

    work page arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    IEEE Micro41(5), 33–40 (2021)

    Tomesh, T., Martonosi, M.: Quantum codesign. IEEE Micro41(5), 33–40 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    In: Schulz, M., Trinitis, C., Papadopoulou, N., Pionteck, T

    Wintersperger, K., Safi, H., Mauerer, W.: Qpu-system co-design for quantum hpc accelerators. In: Schulz, M., Trinitis, C., Papadopoulou, N., Pionteck, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the 35th GI/ITG International Conference on the Architec- ture of Computing Systems, pp. 100–114. Gesellschaft f¨ ur Informatik, Heilbronn, Germany (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/9...

    doi:10.1007/978-3-031-21867-5 2022

  4. [4]

    https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/ guides/transpile

    IBM Quantum: Transpiler optimization level. https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/ guides/transpile

    work page

  5. [5]

    In: 2020 XXXV Conference on Design of Circuits and Integrated Systems (DCIS), pp

    Bandic, M., Zarein, H., Alarcon, E., Almudever, C.G.: On structured design space exploration for mapping of quantum algorithms. In: 2020 XXXV Conference on Design of Circuits and Integrated Systems (DCIS), pp. 1–6 (2020). IEEE

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Quantum Machine Intelligence5(2), 40 (2023)

    Bandic, M., Almudever, C.G., Feld, S.: Interaction graph-based characteriza- tion of quantum benchmarks for improving quantum circuit mapping techniques. Quantum Machine Intelligence5(2), 40 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    https://github.com/ QML-Group/qbench (2021) 28

    Bandic, M., Paraskevopulous, N.: qBench benchmark suite. https://github.com/ QML-Group/qbench (2021) 28

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Quantum Science and Technology10(2025) https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/ ada180

    Bandic, M., Henaff, P., Ovide, A., Escofet, P., Ben Rached, S., Santiago, R., Someren, H., Abadal, S., Alarc´ on, E., Almudever, C., Feld, S.: Profiling quan- tum circuits for their efficient execution on single- and multi-core architectures. Quantum Science and Technology10(2025) https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/ ada180

    doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ 2025

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum4, 321 (2020)

    Sarovar, M., Proctor, T., Rudinger, K., Young, K., Nielsen, E., Blume-Kohout, R.: Detecting crosstalk errors in quantum information processors. Quantum4, 321 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    In: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), pp

    Giurgica-Tiron, T., Hindy, Y., LaRose, R., Mari, A., Zeng, W.J.: Digital zero noise extrapolation for quantum error mitigation. In: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), pp. 306–316. IEEE, Denver, CO, USA (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109...

    2020

  3. [11]

    Q-SANER@IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolu- tion and Reengineering (2022)

    Mauerer, W., Scherzinger, S.: 1-2-3 reproducibility for quantum software experi- ments. Q-SANER@IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolu- tion and Reengineering (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Software (QSW), pp

    Safi, H., Wintersperger, K., Mauerer, W.: Influence of hw-sw-co-design on quan- tum computing scalability. In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Software (QSW), pp. 104–115 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1109/QSW59989.2023. 00022

    2023

  5. [13]

    In: Proceedings of IEEE QCE (2025)

    Mauerer, S.T.W.: Predict and conquer: Navigating algorithm trade-offs with quantum design automation. In: Proceedings of IEEE QCE (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    In: 2022 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE), pp

    Bandic, M., Feld, S., Almudever, C.G.: Full-stack quantum computing systems in the nisq era: algorithm-driven and hardware-aware compilation techniques. In: 2022 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE), pp. 1–6 (2022). IEEE

    2022

  7. [15]

    In: International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, pp

    Murali, P., Baker, J.M., Javadi-Abhari, A., Chong, F.T., Martonosi, M.: Noise- adaptive compiler mappings for noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers. In: International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, pp. 1015–1029 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, pp

    Li, G., Ding, Y., Xie, Y.: Towards efficient superconducting quantum processor architecture design. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, pp. 1031–1045 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    In: 2019 ACM/IEEE 46th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA), pp

    Murali, P., Linke, N.M., Martonosi, M., Abhari, A.J., Nguyen, N.H., Alderete, C.H.: Full-stack, real-system quantum computer studies: Architectural com- parisons and design insights. In: 2019 ACM/IEEE 46th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA), pp. 527...

    2019

  10. [18]

    ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing6(1) (2025) https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3673241

    Quetschlich, N., Burgholzer, L., Wille, R.: Mqt predictor: Automatic device selection with device-specific circuit compilation for quantum computing. ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing6(1) (2025) https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3673241

    2025

  11. [19]

    IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems32(6), 818–830 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1109/tcad.2013.2244643

    Amy, M., Maslov, D., Mosca, M., Roetteler, M.: A meet-in-the-middle algo- rithm for fast synthesis of depth-optimal quantum circuits. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems32(6), 818–830 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1109/tcad.2013.2244643

    2013

  12. [20]

    Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    Preskill, J.: Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond. Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Nature Reviews Physics, 1–20 (2021)

    Cerezo, M., Arrasmith, A., Babbush, R., Benjamin, S.C., Endo, S., Fujii, K., McClean, J.R., Mitarai, K., Yuan, X., Cincio, L., et al.: Variational quantum algorithms. Nature Reviews Physics, 1–20 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.4028

    Farhi, E., Goldstone, J., Gutmann, S.: A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (2014). https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.4028

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    In: Proceedings of WIHPQC@IEEE QCE (2024)

    Thelen, S., Safi, H., Mauerer, W.: Approximating under the influence of quantum noise and compute power. In: Proceedings of WIHPQC@IEEE QCE (2024). https: //doi.org/10.1109/QCE60285.2024.10291

    2024

  16. [24]

    Physical Review Letters119(18) (2017) https://doi.org/10.1103/ physrevlett.119.180509

    Temme, K., Bravyi, S., Gambetta, J.M.: Error mitigation for short-depth quan- tum circuits. Physical Review Letters119(18) (2017) https://doi.org/10.1103/ physrevlett.119.180509

    2017

  17. [25]

    In: Proceedings of 37th Con- ference on Foundations of Computer Science, pp

    Shor, P.W.: Fault-tolerant quantum computation. In: Proceedings of 37th Con- ference on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 56–65 (1996). https://doi.org/ 10.1109/SFCS.1996.548464

    1996

  18. [27]

    Contemporary Physics60(3), 226–245 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1080/00107514.2019.1667078

    Roffe, J.: Quantum error correction: an introductory guide. Contemporary Physics60(3), 226–245 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1080/00107514.2019.1667078

    2019

  19. [28]

    IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering1, 1–14 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1109/TQE.2020.3026544

    Niu, S., Suau, A., Staffelbach, G., Todri-Sanial, A.: A hardware-aware heuristic for the qubit mapping problem in the nisq era. IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering1, 1–14 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1109/TQE.2020.3026544

    2020

  20. [29]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the 59th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference

    Park, S., Kim, D., Kweon, M., Sim, J.-Y., Kang, S.: A fast and scalable qubit-mapping method for noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers. In: Pro- ceedings of the 59th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference. DAC ’22, pp. 13–18. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, ...

    2022

  21. [30]

    In: International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, pp

    Li, G., Ding, Y., Xie, Y.: Tackling the qubit mapping problem for NISQ-era quantum devices. In: International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, pp. 1001–1014 (2019)

    2019

  22. [31]

    In: 2020 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE), pp

    Almudever, C.G., Lao, L., Wille, R., Guerreschi, G.G.: Realizing quantum algo- rithms on real quantum computing devices. In: 2020 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE), pp. 864–872 (2020). IEEE

    2020

  23. [32]

    ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing3(2) (2022) https://doi.org/10.1145/3520434

    Pozzi, M.G., Herbert, S.J., Sengupta, A., Mullins, R.D.: Using reinforcement learning to perform qubit routing in quantum compilers. ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing3(2) (2022) https://doi.org/10.1145/3520434

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

    IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems (2018)

    Zulehner, A., Paler, A., Wille, R.: An efficient methodology for mapping quantum circuits to the IBM QX architectures. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems (2018)

    2018

  25. [34]

    Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 1–34 (2023)

    Wagner, F., B¨ armann, A., Liers, F., Weissenb¨ ack, M.: Improving quantum computation by optimized qubit routing. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 1–34 (2023)

    2023

  26. [35]

    In: 2023 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), pp

    Bandic, M., Prielinger, L., Nußlein and, J., Ovide, A., Rodrigo, S., Abadal, S., Someren, H.v., Vardoyan, G., Alarcon, E., Almudever, C.G., Feld, S.: Mapping quantum circuits to modular architectures with qubo. In: 2023 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Quantum Computing and ...

    2023

  27. [36]

    Proceedings of the ISCAS ’23 (2023)

    Ovide, A., Rodrigo, S., Bandic, M., Van Someren, H., Feld, S., Abadal, S., Alar- con, E., Almudever, C.G.: Mapping quantum algorithms to multi-core quantum computing architectures. Proceedings of the ISCAS ’23 (2023)

    2023

  28. [37]

    In: 14th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography (TQC 2019) (2019)

    Cowtan, A., Dilkes, S., Duncan, R., Krajenbrink, A., Simmons, W., Sivarajah, S.: On the qubit routing problem. In: 14th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography (TQC 2019) (2019). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik

    2019

  29. [38]

    Physics Reports831, 1–57 (2019) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2019.10.001

    Schlosshauer, M.: Quantum decoherence. Physics Reports831, 1–57 (2019) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2019.10.001

    2019 doi

  30. [39]

    Nature Physics16(12), 1184–1188 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41567-020-0992-8

    Harper, R., Flammia, S.T., Wallman, J.J.: Efficient learning of quantum noise. Nature Physics16(12), 1184–1188 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41567-020-0992-8

    2020

  31. [40]

    Quantum9, 1659 (2025) https://doi.org/10

    Rosa, E.C.R., Duzzioni, E.I., Santiago, R.: Optimizing gate decomposition for high-level quantum programming. Quantum9, 1659 (2025) https://doi.org/10. 31 22331/q-2025-03-12-1659

    2025

  32. [41]

    Quantum Science and Technology3(4), 045003 (2018)

    Guerreschi, G.G., Park, J.: Two-step approach to scheduling quantum circuits. Quantum Science and Technology3(4), 045003 (2018)

    2018

  33. [42]

    In: Proceedings of the 2018 International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization

    Siraichi, M.Y., Santos, V.F.d., Collange, C., Pereira, F.M.Q.: Qubit allocation. In: Proceedings of the 2018 International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization. CGO 2018, pp. 113–125. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2018). https://doi.org/10.11...

    2018 doi

  34. [43]

    npj Quantum Information5(1), 25 (2019)

    Pant, M., Krovi, H., Towsley, D., Tassiulas, L., Jiang, L., Basu, P., Englund, D., Guha, S.: Routing entanglement in the quantum internet. npj Quantum Information5(1), 25 (2019)

    2019

  35. [44]

    Scientific reports10(1), 1–15 (2020)

    Gyongyosi, L., Imre, S.: Routing space exploration for scalable routing in the quantum internet. Scientific reports10(1), 1–15 (2020)

    2020

  36. [45]

    Quantum Information Processing22(7), 264 (2023)

    Mariella, N., Zhuk, S.: A doubly stochastic matrices-based approach to optimal qubit routing. Quantum Information Processing22(7), 264 (2023)

    2023

  37. [46]

    Quantum Reports7, 2 (2025) https://doi.org/10.3390/quantum7010002

    Karuppasamy, K., Puram, V., Johnson, S., Thomas, J.: A comprehensive review of quantum circuit optimization: Current trends and future directions. Quantum Reports7, 2 (2025) https://doi.org/10.3390/quantum7010002

    2025 doi

  38. [47]

    https://research.ibm.com/ blog/heavy-hex-lattice

    IBM Quantum: The IBM Quantum heavy hex lattice. https://research.ibm.com/ blog/heavy-hex-lattice

  39. [48]

    Nature574(7779), 505–510 (2019)

    Arute, F., Arya, K., Babbush, R., Bacon, D., Bardin, J.C., Barends, R., Biswas, R., Boixo, S., Brandao, F.G., Buell, D.A.,et al.: Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature574(7779), 505–510 (2019)

    2019

  40. [49]

    ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing5(1), 1–36 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1145/3624484

    Paraskevopoulos, N., Sebastiano, F., Almudever, C.G., Feld, S.: Spinq: Com- pilation strategies for scalable spin-qubit architectures. ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing5(1), 1–36 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1145/3624484

    2023 doi

  41. [50]

    In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Architectural Support for Pro- gramming Languages and Operating Systems

    Murali, P., Mckay, D.C., Martonosi, M., Javadi-Abhari, A.: Software mitigation of crosstalk on noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Architectural Support for Pro- gramming Languages and Operating Systems. A...

    2020

  42. [51]

    PRX Quantum3, 020301 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum

    Zhao, P., Linghu, K., Li, Z., Xu, P., Wang, R., Xue, G., Jin, Y., Yu, H.: Quantum crosstalk analysis for simultaneous gate operations on superconducting qubits. PRX Quantum3, 020301 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum. 3.020301 32

    2022 doi

  43. [52]

    Undseth, B., Xue, X., Mehmandoost, M., Rimbach-Russ, M., Eendebak, P.T., Samkharadze, N., Sammak, A., Dobrovitski, V.V., Scappucci, G., Vandersypen, L.M.K.: Nonlinear response and crosstalk of electrically driven silicon spin qubits. Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 044078 (2023) https://d...

    2023 doi

  44. [53]

    Cambridge University Press, ??? (2010)

    Nielsen, M.A., Chuang, I.L.: Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press, ??? (2010)

    2010

  45. [54]

    Fowler, A.G., Mariantoni, M., Martinis, J.M., Cleland, A.N.: Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation. Phys. Rev. A86, 032324 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.86.032324

    2012 doi

  46. [55]

    npj Quantum Information2(1) (2016) https://doi.org/10.1038/npjqi.2016.12

    Cross, A.W., Magesan, E., Bishop, L.S., Smolin, J.A., Gambetta, J.M.: Scalable randomised benchmarking of non-clifford gates. npj Quantum Information2(1) (2016) https://doi.org/10.1038/npjqi.2016.12

    2016 doi

  47. [56]

    Georgopoulos, K., Emary, C., Zuliani, P.: Modeling and simulating the noisy behavior of near-term quantum computers. Phys. Rev. A104, 062432 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.104.062432

    2021 doi

  48. [57]

    https:// arxiv.org/abs/2202.14025

    Kharkov, Y., Ivanova, A., Mikhantiev, E., Kotelnikov, A.: Arline Benchmarks: Automated Benchmarking Platform for Quantum Compilers (2022). https:// arxiv.org/abs/2202.14025

    2022 arXiv

  49. [58]

    https://qutech.nl/wp-content/ uploads/2020/04/3.-Technical-Fact-Sheet-Quantum-Inspire-Starmon-5.pdf (2020)

    QuTech: Quantum Inspire Starmon-5 Fact Sheet. https://qutech.nl/wp-content/ uploads/2020/04/3.-Technical-Fact-Sheet-Quantum-Inspire-Starmon-5.pdf (2020)

    2020

  50. [59]

    https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/ guides/set-optimization

    IBM Quantum: Qiskit Optimization levels. https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/ guides/set-optimization

  51. [60]

    https://docs.quantum

    IBM Quantum: IBM Quantum Routing Documentation. https://docs.quantum. ibm.com/api/qiskit/qiskit.transpiler.Layout

  52. [61]

    IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems33(10), 1476–1489 (2014) https: //doi.org/10.1109/tcad.2014.2341953

    Amy, M., Maslov, D., Mosca, M.: Polynomial-time t-depth optimization of clif- ford+t circuits via matroid partitioning. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems33(10), 1476–1489 (2014) https: //doi.org/10.1109/tcad.2014.2341953

    2014

  53. [62]

    https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/ api/qiskit/0.28/qiskit.transpiler.passes.CrosstalkAdaptiveSchedule

    IBM Quantum: Crosstalk Adaptive Schedule. https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/ api/qiskit/0.28/qiskit.transpiler.passes.CrosstalkAdaptiveSchedule

  54. [63]

    https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/api/ qiskit-ibm-runtime/options-twirling-options

    IBM Quantum: Twirling Options. https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/api/ qiskit-ibm-runtime/options-twirling-options

  55. [64]

    Quantum Science and Technology9(2024) https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/ad5a37

    Niu, S., Todri-Sanial, A., Bronn, N.: Multi-qubit dynamical decoupling for 33 enhanced crosstalk suppression. Quantum Science and Technology9(2024) https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/ad5a37

    2024 doi

  56. [65]

    Mundada, P., Zhang, G., Hazard, T., Houck, A.: Suppression of qubit crosstalk in a tunable coupling superconducting circuit. Phys. Rev. Appl.12, 054023 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.12.054023

    2019 doi

  57. [66]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.08844

    Nation, P.D., Saki, A.A., Brandhofer, S., Bello, L., Garion, S., Treinish, M., Javadi-Abhari, A.: Benchmarking the performance of quantum computing soft- ware (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.08844

    2025 arXiv

  58. [67]

    In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Architectural Support for Program- ming Languages and Operating Systems

    Tannu, S.S., Qureshi, M.K.: Not all qubits are created equal: A case for variability-aware policies for nisq-era quantum computers. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Architectural Support for Program- ming Languages and Operating Systems. ASPLOS ...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.