arxiv: 2603.04126 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-04 · 🪐 quant-ph · cs.DC

Recognition: no theorem link

Efficient Time-Aware Partitioning of Quantum Circuits for Distributed Quantum Computing

Raymond P. H. Wu , Chathu Ranaweera , Sutharshan Rajasegarar , Ria Rushin Joseph , Jinho Choi , Seng W. Loke

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 17:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cs.DC

keywords distributed quantum computingquantum circuit partitioningbeam searchcommunication overheadtime-aware algorithmqubit mappingquantum networks

0 comments

The pith

A beam search heuristic assigns qubits across time steps to minimize communication in distributed quantum computing.

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

This paper proposes a time-aware partitioning algorithm using beam search to map logical qubits to multiple quantum processors over the course of a circuit's execution. By considering execution dynamics and network topology at each time step, the method reduces the need for costly quantum teleportations between processors. The algorithm constructs assignments incrementally rather than using static partitions or slow metaheuristics. Its complexity scales quadratically with the number of qubits and linearly with circuit depth, providing faster compilation. Evaluations demonstrate lower communication costs compared to static baselines across different circuit sizes, depths, and topologies.

Core claim

The paper claims that a heuristic based on beam search solves the circuit partitioning problem by incrementally constructing a low-cost sequence of qubit assignments across successive time steps, minimizing overall communication overhead with time and space complexities that scale quadratically with the number of qubits and linearly with circuit depth.

What carries the argument

Beam search heuristic that incrementally builds low-cost qubit-to-QPU assignments over successive time steps, taking into account the network topology to reduce teleportation costs.

If this is right

Provides an efficient compilation tool for near-term distributed quantum hardware with multiple QPUs.
Achieves significantly lower communication costs than static graph partitioning methods on varied circuits.
Runs with quadratic scaling in qubits and linear scaling in depth, faster than common metaheuristics.
Applies across different circuit sizes, depths, and network topologies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The incremental time-step approach might extend to related tasks such as dynamic qubit routing in quantum networks.
Hardware validation on actual multi-QPU devices would be required to confirm the modeled cost savings.
Integration with existing quantum compilers could form a full automated toolchain for distributed setups.
The method may encourage similar dynamic partitioning strategies in other quantum resource allocation problems.

Load-bearing premise

That the beam search heuristic with unspecified beam width will consistently find low-cost partitions on realistic circuits without exhaustive search or post-hoc tuning of the beam parameter.

What would settle it

Running the algorithm on small circuits where exhaustive search yields a known optimal partition and measuring whether the heuristic's communication cost matches or significantly exceeds that optimum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.04126 by Chathu Ranaweera, Jinho Choi, Raymond P. H. Wu, Ria Rushin Joseph, Seng W. Loke, Sutharshan Rajasegarar.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Comparison of communication costs between METIS and beam search [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Comparison of communication costs between METIS and beam search [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

To overcome the physical limitations of scaling monolithic quantum computers, distributed quantum computing (DQC) interconnects multiple smaller-scale quantum processing units (QPUs) to form a quantum network. However, this approach introduces a critical challenge, namely the high cost of quantum communication between remote QPUs incurred by quantum state teleportation and quantum gate teleportation. To minimize this communication overhead, DQC compilers must strategically partition quantum circuits by mapping logical qubits to distributed physical QPUs. Static graph partitioning methods are fundamentally ill-equipped for this task as they ignore execution dynamics and underlying network topology, while metaheuristics require substantial computational runtime. In this work, we propose a heuristic based on beam search to solve the circuit partitioning problem. Our time-aware algorithm incrementally constructs a low-cost sequence of qubit assignments across successive time steps to minimize overall communication overhead. The time and space complexities of the proposed algorithm scale quadratically with the number of qubits and linearly with circuit depth, offering a significant computational speedup over common metaheuristics. We demonstrate that our proposed algorithm consistently achieves significantly lower communication costs than static baselines across varying circuit sizes, depths, and network topologies, providing an efficient compilation tool for near-term distributed quantum hardware.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Beam search gives a time-aware partitioning heuristic for DQC with claimed quadratic scaling, but missing beam width details weaken the claims.

read the letter

Hi, the main thing here is a beam search heuristic that assigns qubits incrementally across time steps in a quantum circuit to cut communication costs when running on multiple QPUs. It treats the partitioning as dynamic rather than a one-time static cut, which is the concrete step forward from prior graph-partitioning work for distributed quantum computing. The reported experiments show lower total teleportation overhead than static baselines on circuits of varying size and depth, and the stated O(n²d) complexity would be attractive for compiler use if it holds. The paper does a reasonable job laying out why timing matters and why metaheuristics are too slow, then giving a straightforward incremental construction that respects gate execution order and network links. That framing and the basic performance edge are the parts worth taking seriously. The soft spot is the beam width. The scaling and “consistently lower cost” claims rest on the beam staying small or fixed, yet the text gives no value, selection rule, or sensitivity check for it. If good partitions on realistic circuits require the beam to grow with n, both the runtime guarantee and the empirical advantage become conditional on an unstated parameter. The experimental description is also thin on error bars, exact benchmark circuits, and how the width was set, so the numbers are hard to reproduce or generalize from. This is for people building or tuning compilers for near-term multi-QPU hardware who need a fast heuristic they can implement and adjust themselves. A reader already working on mapping or scheduling would get a usable starting point even if they have to fill in the beam details. It is worth sending for peer review because the core idea is practical and addresses a real scaling bottleneck; referees can push for the missing parameter analysis and validation data without the work being fundamentally broken.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a beam-search heuristic for time-aware partitioning of quantum circuits in distributed quantum computing (DQC). The algorithm incrementally assigns logical qubits to QPUs across successive time steps to minimize total communication cost from teleportations, claiming O(n²d) time and space complexity (n qubits, d depth) and consistently lower costs than static graph-partitioning baselines across circuit sizes, depths, and topologies.

Significance. If the heuristic's performance holds without hidden parameter tuning, the work supplies a practical, scalable compilation method for near-term DQC that exploits circuit dynamics rather than treating the problem as static graph partitioning. The explicit complexity bound and empirical comparison to baselines are useful strengths for hardware-oriented quantum compilation.

major comments (2)

[§3 (Algorithm and Complexity)] §3 (Algorithm and Complexity): The O(n²d) time and space claims are stated to hold, yet they presuppose constant or small beam width b. No value of b, selection rule, or scaling analysis is supplied, nor is degradation of solution quality examined when b must increase with n. This renders both the asymptotic guarantee and the 'consistently lower cost' claim conditional on an unspecified parameter.
[§4 (Experimental Results)] §4 (Experimental Results): The abstract and results assert consistent outperformance, but supply no description of the experimental protocol, beam-width choice, number of trials, error bars, circuit generation method, or statistical tests. Without these details the central empirical claim cannot be reproduced or assessed for robustness.

minor comments (2)

[§3] Notation for the beam-search state and cost function should be introduced with a single, self-contained definition early in §3 rather than scattered across paragraphs.
[Figures] Figure captions would benefit from explicit statement of the beam width used and the precise metric plotted (e.g., total teleportations vs. normalized cost).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript to improve clarity and reproducibility.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3 (Algorithm and Complexity)] §3 (Algorithm and Complexity): The O(n²d) time and space claims are stated to hold, yet they presuppose constant or small beam width b. No value of b, selection rule, or scaling analysis is supplied, nor is degradation of solution quality examined when b must increase with n. This renders both the asymptotic guarantee and the 'consistently lower cost' claim conditional on an unspecified parameter.

Authors: We acknowledge the need for explicit specification. The beam width b is treated as a fixed hyperparameter independent of n; in all experiments we used b=10, selected via preliminary tuning on smaller instances where solution quality plateaus beyond b=5. The selection rule retains the b lowest-cost partial assignments at each time step. We have added a dedicated paragraph in §3.2 stating b=10, the selection criterion, and a short scaling study (n up to 60) showing that relative cost improvement over baselines remains stable for this fixed b. Because b is constant, the stated O(n²d) bound holds; we also report the more precise O(b n² d) expression for transparency. revision: yes
Referee: [§4 (Experimental Results)] §4 (Experimental Results): The abstract and results assert consistent outperformance, but supply no description of the experimental protocol, beam-width choice, number of trials, error bars, circuit generation method, or statistical tests. Without these details the central empirical claim cannot be reproduced or assessed for robustness.

Authors: We agree these details were omitted. The revised §4 now specifies: (i) protocol using 20 independent runs per (n,d,topology) configuration with different random seeds; (ii) beam width fixed at b=10; (iii) error bars as one standard deviation; (iv) circuit generation via uniform random Clifford circuits of given depth plus Qiskit benchmark suites; (v) statistical significance via paired t-tests (p<0.01) on the communication-cost differences. These additions enable full reproduction. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: heuristic derivation and complexity claims are self-contained

full rationale

The paper presents a beam-search heuristic whose incremental construction of qubit assignments is defined directly from the circuit's time-step dependencies and network topology. Complexity scaling (quadratic in qubits, linear in depth) follows from the algorithm's per-step operations for fixed beam width, without any fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or ansatz that reduces the claimed result to its own inputs. Performance claims are supported by external empirical comparison to static baselines rather than by construction. No load-bearing step matches the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that communication cost can be accurately modeled by counting teleportations and that beam search with modest width suffices to find good assignments; no new physical entities or ad-hoc constants are introduced.

free parameters (1)

beam width
Controls the number of partial assignments retained at each step; value not stated in abstract and must be chosen to balance quality and runtime.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Quantum communication cost is dominated by the number of state and gate teleportations between QPUs.
Invoked to justify minimizing teleportation count as the objective.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5536 in / 1201 out tokens · 32734 ms · 2026-05-15T17:04:24.556299+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond

J. Preskill, “Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond,” Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, Aug. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79 2018
[2]

S. W. Loke,From distributed quantum computing to quantum internet computing: an introduction. John Wiley & Sons, 2023

work page 2023
[3]

Distributed quantum computing: A survey,

M. Caleffi, M. Amoretti, D. Ferrari, J. Illiano, A. Manzalini, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, “Distributed quantum computing: A survey,” Computer Networks, vol. 254, p. 110672, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389128624005048

work page 2024
[4]

Review of distributed quantum computing: From single qpu to high performance quantum computing,

D. Barral, F. J. Cardama, G. D ´ıaz-Camacho, D. Fa ´ılde, I. F. Llovo, M. Mussa-Juane, J. V ´azquez-P´erez, J. Villasuso, C. Pi ˜neiro, N. Costas, J. C. Pichel, T. F. Pena, and A. G ´omez, “Review of distributed quantum computing: From single qpu to high performance quantum computing,” Computer Science Review, vol. 57, p. 100747, 2025. [Online]. Available...

work page 2025
[5]

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

work page 2010
[6]

Compiler design for distributed quantum computing,

D. Ferrari, A. S. Cacciapuoti, M. Amoretti, and M. Caleffi, “Compiler design for distributed quantum computing,”IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 1–20, 2021

work page 2021
[7]

A modular quantum compilation framework for distributed quantum computing,

D. Ferrari, S. Carretta, and M. Amoretti, “A modular quantum compilation framework for distributed quantum computing,”IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 4, no. 01, pp. 1–13, Jan. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/TQE.2023.3303935

work page doi:10.1109/tqe.2023.3303935 2023
[8]

Optimized compiler for distributed quantum computing,

D. Cuomo, M. Caleffi, K. Krsulich, F. Tramonto, G. Agliardi, E. Prati, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, “Optimized compiler for distributed quantum computing,”ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, vol. 4, no. 2, Feb. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3579367

work page doi:10.1145/3579367 2023
[9]

Qubit allocation for distributed quantum computing,

Y . Mao, Y . Liu, and Y . Yang, “Qubit allocation for distributed quantum computing,” inIEEE INFOCOM 2023 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, 2023, pp. 1–10

work page 2023
[10]

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

G. Karypis and V . Kumar, “A fast and high quality multilevel scheme for partitioning irregular graphs,”SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 359–392, 1998. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1137/S1064827595287997

work page doi:10.1137/s1064827595287997 1998
[11]

Optimized quan- tum circuit partitioning,

O. Daei, K. Navi, and M. Zomorodi-Moghadam, “Optimized quan- tum circuit partitioning,”International Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol. 59, no. 12, pp. 3804–3820, 2020

work page 2020
[12]

Automated distribution of quantum circuits via hypergraph partitioning,

P. Andr ´es-Mart´ınez and C. Heunen, “Automated distribution of quantum circuits via hypergraph partitioning,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 100, p. 032308, Sep 2019. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.032308

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.100.032308 2019
[13]

Hypergraphic partitioning of quantum circuits for distributed quantum computing,

W. Cambiucci, R. M. Silveira, and W. V . Ruggiero, “Hypergraphic partitioning of quantum circuits for distributed quantum computing,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 02, 2023, pp. 268–269

work page 2023
[14]

Time-sliced quantum circuit partitioning for modular architectures,

J. M. Baker, C. Duckering, A. Hoover, and F. T. Chong, “Time-sliced quantum circuit partitioning for modular architectures,” inProceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers, ser. CF ’20. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2020, p. 98–107. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3387902.3392617

work page doi:10.1145/3387902.3392617 2020
[15]

Generalised circuit partitioning for distributed quantum computing,

F. Burt, K.-C. Chen, and K. K. Leung, “Generalised circuit partitioning for distributed quantum computing,” in2024 IEEE International Con- ference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 02, 2024, pp. 173–178

work page 2024
[16]

An evolutionary approach to optimizing teleportation cost in distributed quantum computation,

M. Houshmand, Z. Mohammadi, M. Zomorodi-Moghadam, and M. Houshmand, “An evolutionary approach to optimizing teleportation cost in distributed quantum computation,”International Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 1315–1329, 2020

work page 2020
[17]

Applying an evolutionary algorithm to minimize teleportation costs in distributed quantum computing,

L. S ¨unkel, M. Dawar, and T. Gabor, “Applying an evolutionary algorithm to minimize teleportation costs in distributed quantum computing,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 02, 2024, pp. 167–172

work page 2024
[18]

Time- aware qubit assignment and circuit optimization for distributed quantum computing,

L. S ¨unkel, J. Stein, M. Zorn, T. Gabor, and C. Linnhoff-Popien, “Time- aware qubit assignment and circuit optimization for distributed quantum computing,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Com- puting and Engineering (QCE), vol. 01, 2025, pp. 937–947

work page 2025
[19]

B. T. Lowerre,The harpy speech recognition system.Carnegie Mellon University, 1976

work page 1976