pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.25863 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-28 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

MCMit: Mid-Circuit Measurement Error Mitigation

Emmanouil Giortamis , Felix Gust , Aleksandra \'Swierkowska , Sandra Stankovic , Innocenzo Fulginiti , Yanbin Chen , Xiaorang Guo , Benjamin Lienhard
show 2 more authors
Martin Schulz Pramod Bhatotia
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 16:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords mid-circuit measurementquantum error correctionerror mitigationhardware-software co-designqubit state discriminationdynamic circuitsclassical feedbackquantum computing
0
0 comments X

The pith

MCMit reduces mid-circuit measurement errors in quantum circuits by combining faster classical feedback hardware with improved qubit discriminators.

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

The paper establishes that mid-circuit measurements and classical feedback create major error sources in dynamic quantum circuits for error correction and distributed computing. MCMit addresses both the latency that amplifies decoherence and the discrimination inaccuracies that cause wrong branching. It adds a constant-latency multi-control branch instruction, a CNN and transformer for state discrimination, plus software passes that remove some measurements statically and apply stochastic branching for residuals. Evaluations on extracted hardware traces show the CNN raises short-duration accuracy by 37-73 percent and the branch cuts latency by up to 70 percent.

Core claim

MCMit mitigates branching and latency-induced errors in mid-circuit measurements by introducing a scalable constant-latency multi-control branch instruction for faster feedback, transformer and CNN qubit-state discriminators that maintain high accuracy under short measurement durations, and software techniques of static MCM elimination and stochastic branching that handle remaining errors.

What carries the argument

The constant-latency multi-control branch instruction paired with the CNN qubit-state discriminator, which together shorten feedback time and raise discrimination accuracy at short durations.

If this is right

  • Feedback latency drops by up to 70 percent, supporting circuit depths up to 7 times larger than current Qubic baselines.
  • CNN discriminator accuracy rises 37-73 percent for short measurements, yielding up to 80 percent lower logical error rates in quantum error correction.
  • Software mitigation adds 18-30 percent fidelity improvement over baseline methods even after hardware gains.
  • The combination enables more complex dynamic circuits without proportional growth in decoherence errors.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same branch instruction could support tighter real-time control loops in other quantum algorithms that rely on frequent measurements.
  • Training the CNN on a broader set of circuits might extend the accuracy gains to longer or more varied measurement durations.
  • Static MCM elimination could be combined with existing circuit compilation passes to further reduce overhead in error-corrected codes.
  • Generalization beyond the tested Qubic setup would require verifying the discriminators on hardware with different readout noise profiles.

Load-bearing premise

The experimentally extracted QPU readout traces faithfully represent the noise and timing behavior of the target hardware under real-time operation.

What would settle it

Executing full MCMit circuits with real-time mid-circuit measurements on a different QPU and measuring whether the observed logical error rates match the reductions predicted from the trace-based simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.25863 by Aleksandra \'Swierkowska, Benjamin Lienhard, Emmanouil Giortamis, Felix Gust, Innocenzo Fulginiti, Martin Schulz, Pramod Bhatotia, Sandra Stankovic, Xiaorang Guo, Yanbin Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Superconducting readout (§ 2.1). (a) Superconducting qubit readout pipeline on an FPGA controller. (b) The MCM in a tele￾portation circuit can produce a readout trace of 1𝜇𝑠: 500 samples spaced 2ns apart. (c) The readout trace is input to a Feed-forward Neural Network comprising N layers. The network discriminates 0 and 1 using a decision boundary that separates the states. measurement rounds, directly com… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: MECH [112] performance analysis. (a) Impact of MCM errors as a ratio to the 2-qubit gate errors. (b) Impact of MCM latency as a ratio to the 2-qubit gate latency. (c) Impact of classical feedback latency as a ratio to the 2-qubit gate latency. There is a linear performance improvement with MCM error and (classical) latency reduction. 2 Background In this section, we detail the superconducting qubit readout… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Logical error rate of the surface code on the view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: MCMit workflow (§ 4.2). (a) Compile-time workflow and (b) runtime workflow. joint outcomes of multiple qubits. This instruction enables more com￾plex, constant-latency feedback protocols that are not possible with existing branching. This functionality is particularly advantageous for routines such as parity checks and majority voting [12, 106], where MCM results are used to directly address a pre-computed… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: MCMit controller (§ 5). Blue boxes show modified components, yellow boxes show ADC/DAC components, and green boxes show example data tables. Steps (1)-(8) are executed for a conditional feedback operation based on an MCM result. Runtime workflow. For each set of MCMs that generates a set of {I, Q} traces, (1) we first discriminate the qubit-states and extract the discrimination confidence. (2) If it is bel… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The MCMit qubit-state discriminators (§ 6). exhibits a large size that stresses FPGA resources ( view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dynamic circuit simplification (§ 7.1). The original dynamic circuit is replaced by a static sub-circuit containing a probabilistic gate, whose outcome is decided at compile time. their associated control logic (§ 7.1), (2) measurement hardening via repetition codes, parity checks, and repeated measurements to detect and correct bitflip errors (§ 7.2), and (3) stochastic branching, which probabilistically … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Software MCM error mitigation (§ 7). (a) GHZ state dynamic circuit. (b) Dynamic circuit simplification removes MCMs when possible and simplifies classical conditional logic. (c) Measurement hardening leverages repetition codes, parity checks, and flag qubits to detect and/or correct errors. (d) Stochastic branching factors MCM errors into branching decisions. 10 50 100 250 500 750 1000 Number of instances … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Classical feedback latency impact (§ 8.2). The x-axis shows the number of instances of the GHZ/CNOT circuit in a higher-level application. MCMit achieves 57.3% and 37.8% higher fidelity than Qubic, on average. 7.3 Stochastic Branching To address branching errors caused by MCM bitflips in dynamic cir￾cuits, we leverage confusion matrix [73] data provided by the MCMit controller to inform stochastic compila… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: MCMit software error mitigation impact on fidelity (§ view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Readout duration impact on fidelity (§ 8.3). The x￾axis shows the number of teleportation steps. A 250ns readout achieves 6% higher fidelity than that of 750ns, on average. manner, respectively). “Raw” indicates completely unmitigated re￾sults, and the MCMit and Qiskit M3 results do not use other error mitigation techniques, for fairness. Each experiment runs for 10.000 shots on the same calibration cycle… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Impact of varying readout duration and fidelity on logical error rate. view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Distributed Quantum Computing (DQC) and Quantum Error Correction (QEC) rely on dynamic circuits that include Mid-Circuit Measurements (MCMs) and classical feedback. These operations present a major bottleneck: MCMs suffer from high error rates that lead to real-time branching errors, while MCM and classical feedback latencies amplify decoherence errors. Current hardware controllers, qubit-state discriminators, and software error mitigation techniques fail to address these challenges holistically. We propose MCMit, a hardware-software co-design to mitigate branching and latency-induced errors. MCMit introduces a scalable, constant-latency multi-control branch instruction for faster classical feedback and two qubit-state discriminators, a transformer, and a CNN, with high accuracy even under short measurement durations. On the software side, static MCM elimination and stochastic branching complement the hardware by mitigating residual branching errors that persist despite hardware improvements. We implement MCMit on Qubic and evaluate it using experimentally extracted QPU readout traces. Our branch instruction reduces feedback latency by up to 70\%, improving circuit depths by up to $7\times$ over Qubic. Our CNN discriminator achieves 37-73\% higher accuracy for short measurement durations than the baselines, leading to up to 80\% lower logical error rates in QEC. Last, our software mitigation improves fidelity by 18--30\% over baseline methods.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MCMit, a hardware-software co-design for mitigating errors in mid-circuit measurements (MCMs) and classical feedback within dynamic circuits for distributed quantum computing and quantum error correction. It introduces a constant-latency multi-control branch instruction on the Qubic controller, CNN and transformer qubit-state discriminators that maintain high accuracy at short measurement durations, and software techniques (static MCM elimination and stochastic branching) to handle residual errors. Evaluation on experimentally extracted QPU readout traces reports up to 70% feedback latency reduction (enabling up to 7× deeper circuits), 37-73% higher discriminator accuracy than baselines, up to 80% lower logical error rates in QEC, and 18-30% fidelity gains from the software mitigations.

Significance. If the central claims hold under live hardware operation, MCMit would represent a meaningful advance for practical QEC and DQC by jointly tackling MCM error rates and feedback latency, two primary bottlenecks in dynamic circuits. The hardware-software co-design and the provision of concrete latency/fidelity numbers derived from real QPU traces are strengths that offer testable benchmarks; the constant-latency branch instruction in particular addresses a hardware-level constraint that software-only approaches cannot fully resolve.

major comments (2)
  1. [Evaluation using experimentally extracted QPU readout traces] Evaluation using experimentally extracted QPU readout traces: The headline claims (37-73% accuracy lift for the CNN discriminator and up to 80% logical-error reduction) are obtained by feeding pre-collected traces into the proposed discriminators and modeling the multi-control branch. The manuscript does not show that these traces embed the timing jitter, crosstalk, or controller overhead that would arise when the new constant-latency branch instruction and real-time CNN inference run inside a dynamic circuit on the target hardware. Because the translation of these numbers to live QEC depends on this assumption, the evaluation constitutes an extrapolation rather than a direct measurement of the integrated system.
  2. [Evaluation using experimentally extracted QPU readout traces] Statistical characterization of reported gains: The accuracy (37-73%), logical-error (80%), latency (70%), and fidelity (18-30%) improvements are presented without error bars, statistical significance tests, or indication that data splits were pre-specified. This absence makes it impossible to determine whether post-hoc tuning on the same traces contributed to the quoted figures, directly affecting the reliability of the central performance claims.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the branch instruction improves circuit depths by up to 7× over Qubic; the main text should explicitly define the baseline circuit depths and the set of circuits used for this comparison to allow readers to reproduce the scaling factor.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will incorporate clarifications and additional statistical details in the revised version to strengthen the presentation of our evaluation methodology.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Evaluation using experimentally extracted QPU readout traces: The headline claims (37-73% accuracy lift for the CNN discriminator and up to 80% logical-error reduction) are obtained by feeding pre-collected traces into the proposed discriminators and modeling the multi-control branch. The manuscript does not show that these traces embed the timing jitter, crosstalk, or controller overhead that would arise when the new constant-latency branch instruction and real-time CNN inference run inside a dynamic circuit on the target hardware. Because the translation of these numbers to live QEC depends on this assumption, the evaluation constitutes an extrapolation rather than a direct measurement of the integrated system.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the evaluation relies on experimentally extracted QPU readout traces fed into the discriminators together with a model of the constant-latency multi-control branch, rather than a fully integrated live-hardware run of the new instruction and real-time inference inside dynamic circuits. The traces originate from real QPU measurements and therefore already incorporate the dominant readout noise characteristics that the discriminators are designed to mitigate. Our branch-instruction model is derived directly from the constant-latency specification implemented on Qubic. Nevertheless, secondary effects such as timing jitter or crosstalk that would appear only when the full stack operates in a live dynamic circuit are not captured by the trace-based methodology. In the revision we will add an explicit limitations paragraph stating that the reported gains are obtained under this trace-driven model and that live-hardware validation remains future work; we will also qualify the headline numbers as projections based on the measured trace statistics. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Statistical characterization of reported gains: The accuracy (37-73%), logical-error (80%), latency (70%), and fidelity (18-30%) improvements are presented without error bars, statistical significance tests, or indication that data splits were pre-specified. This absence makes it impossible to determine whether post-hoc tuning on the same traces contributed to the quoted figures, directly affecting the reliability of the central performance claims.

    Authors: The quoted figures were generated from fixed, pre-defined hyperparameter settings and a single, non-adaptive processing pipeline applied to the extracted traces; no post-hoc tuning on the reported evaluation set was performed. We nevertheless agree that the absence of error bars and formal statistical tests reduces the ability to assess variability. In the revised manuscript we will (i) report standard deviations or bootstrap confidence intervals for all accuracy, latency, logical-error, and fidelity metrics, (ii) explicitly describe the train/validation/test partitioning of the traces, and (iii) include paired statistical significance tests (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank or bootstrap p-values) comparing MCMit against each baseline. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: performance claims are measured on external QPU traces rather than derived by construction from fitted parameters or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central results (accuracy gains, latency reductions, logical error improvements) are obtained by feeding experimentally extracted readout traces into the proposed CNN/transformer discriminators and modeling the new branch instruction. No equations or sections define a quantity in terms of itself, rename a fitted parameter as a prediction, or rely on a load-bearing self-citation whose validity is internal to the authors' prior work. The evaluation uses independent hardware traces as input, making the reported numbers direct measurements against baselines rather than tautological outputs. This is the expected non-finding for an experimental systems paper whose claims rest on external data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only abstract available; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. The approach implicitly relies on standard quantum hardware noise models and the assumption that ML models trained on extracted traces will transfer to live operation.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions about quantum readout noise and classical feedback timing in superconducting or similar qubit hardware
    Evaluation uses QPU traces and reports improvements in logical error rates without deriving these from first principles.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5575 in / 1427 out tokens · 45852 ms · 2026-05-07T16:30:04.639793+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

115 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit,

    “Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit, ”Nature, vol. 614, no. 7949, pp. 676–681, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Readout error mitigated quantum state tomography tested on superconducting qubits,

    A. S. Aasen, A. Di Giovanni, H. Rotzinger, A. V. Ustinov, and M. Gärttner, “Readout error mitigated quantum state tomography tested on superconducting qubits, ”Communications Physics, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 301, 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    Multiplexed superconducting qubit control at millikelvin temperatures with a low-power cryo-cmos multiplexer,

    R. Acharya, S. Brebels, A. Grill, J. Verjauw, T. Ivanov, D. P. Lozano, D. Wan, J. Van Damme, A. Vadiraj, M. Mongilloet al., “Multiplexed superconducting qubit control at millikelvin temperatures with a low-power cryo-cmos multiplexer, ” Nature Electronics, vol. 6, no. 11, pp. 900–909, 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Automated distribution of quantum circuits via hypergraph partitioning

    P. Andrés-Martínez 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

  5. [5]

    Arquin: Architectures for multinode superconducting quantum computers,

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

    work page doi:10.1145/3674151 2024

  6. [6]

    Arute et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature 574, 505 (2019), doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5 2019

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

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

    D. Barral, F. J. Cardama, G. Díaz-Camacho, D. Faílde, I. F. Llovo, M. Mussa-Juane, J. Vázquez-Pérez, J. Villasuso, C. Piñeiro, N. Costas, J. C. Pichel, T. F. Pena, and A. Gómez, “Review of distributed quantum computing: From single qpu to high performance quantum computing, ” Computer Science Review, vol. 57, p. 100747, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://...

    2025

  9. [9]

    Provable bounds for noise-free expectation values computed from noisy samples,

    S. V. Barron, D. J. Egger, E. Pelofske, A. Bärtschi, S. Eidenbenz, M. Lehmkuehler, and S. Woerner, “Provable bounds for noise-free expectation values computed from noisy samples, ”Nature Computational Science, vol. 4, no. 11, pp. 865–875, 2024

    2024

  10. [10]

    Real-time decoding for fault-tolerant quantum computing: Progress, challenges and outlook,

    F. Battistel, C. Chamberland, K. Johar, R. W. J. Overwater, F. Sebastiano, L. Skoric, Y. Ueno, and M. Usman, “Real-time decoding for fault-tolerant quantum computing: progress, challenges and outlook, ”Nano Futures, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 032003, Aug. 2023. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2399-1984/aceba6

    work page doi:10.1088/2399-1984/aceba6 2023

  11. [11]

    Quantum Fourier Transform Using Dynamic Circuits

    E. Bäumer, V. Tripathi, A. Seif, D. Lidar, and D. S. Wang, “Quantum fourier transform using dynamic circuits, ”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 133, p. 150602, Oct 2024. 12 [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.150602

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.150602 2024

  12. [12]

    Efficient long-range entanglement using dynamic circuits,

    E. Bäumer, V. Tripathi, D. S. Wang, P. Rall, E. H. Chen, S. Majumder, A. Seif, and Z. K. Minev, “Efficient long-range entanglement using dynamic circuits, ”PRX Quantum, vol. 5, p. 030339, Aug 2024. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.030339

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.030339 2024

  13. [13]

    Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels,

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, “Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels, ”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 70, pp. 1895–1899, Mar

  14. [14]

    Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels,

    [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.1895

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.70.1895

  15. [15]

    Beverland, V

    M. Beverland, V. Kliuchnikov, and E. Schoute, “Surface code compilation via edge-disjoint paths, ”PRX Quantum, vol. 3, no. 2, May 2022. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.020342

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.3.020342 2022

  16. [16]

    The future of quantum computing with superconducting qubits,

    S. Bravyi, O. Dial, J. M. Gambetta, D. Gil, and Z. Nazario, “The future of quantum computing with superconducting qubits, ”Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 132, no. 16, p. 160902, 10 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0082975

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0082975 2022

  17. [17]

    and Gambetta, Jay M

    S. Bravyi, S. Sheldon, A. Kandala, D. C. Mckay, and J. M. Gam- betta, “Mitigating measurement errors in multiqubit experiments, ” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 103, p. 042605, Apr 2021. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.103.042605

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.103.042605 2021

  18. [18]

    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

    2024

  19. [19]

    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, Sep. 2023, pp. 268–269

    2023

  20. [20]

    Combining quantum processors with real-time classical communication,

    A. Carrera Vazquez, C. Tornow, D. Ristè, S. Woerner, M. Takita, and D. J. Egger, “Combining quantum processors with real-time classical communication, ” Nature, pp. 1–5, 2024

    2024

  21. [21]

    Reducing mid-circuit measurements via probabilistic circuits,

    Y. Chen, I. Fulginiti, and C. B. Mendl, “Reducing mid-circuit measurements via probabilistic circuits, ” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 01, 2024, pp. 952–958

    2024

  22. [22]

    Optimization framework for reducing mid-circuit measurements and resets,

    ——, “Optimization framework for reducing mid-circuit measurements and resets, ” inComputational Science – ICCS 2025 Workshops, M. Paszynski, A. S. Barnard, and Y. J. Zhang, Eds. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2025, pp. 150–164

    2025

  23. [23]

    Quantum constant propagation,

    Y. Chen and Y. Stade, “Quantum constant propagation, ” inStatic Analysis, M. V. Hermenegildo and J. F. Morales, Eds. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023, pp. 164–189

    2023

  24. [24]

    Multiplexed dispersive readout of superconducting phase qubits,

    Y. Chen, D. Sank, P. O’Malley, T. White, R. Barends, B. Chiaro, J. Kelly, E. Lucero, M. Mariantoni, A. Megrant, C. Neill, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, Y. Yin, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, “Multiplexed dispersive readout of superconducting phase qubits, ”Applied Physics Letters, vol. 101, no. 18, p. 182601, 11 2012. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org...

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4764940 2012

  25. [25]

    , Measuring and suppressing quantum state leakage in a superconducting processor

    Z. Chen, J. Kelly, C. Quintana, R. Barends, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. G. Fowler, E. Lucero, E. Jeffrey, A. Megrant, J. Mutus, M. Neeley, C. Neill, P. J. J. O’Malley, P. Roushan, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, A. N. Korotkov, and J. M. Martinis, “Measuring and suppressing quantum state leakage in a superconducting ...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.020501 2016

  26. [26]

    Exploiting dynamic quantum circuits in a quantum algorithm with superconducting qubits,

    A. D. Córcoles, M. Takita, K. Inoue, S. Lekuch, Z. K. Minev, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, “Exploiting dynamic quantum circuits in a quantum algorithm with superconducting qubits, ”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 127, p. 100501, Aug 2021. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.100501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.100501 2021

  27. [27]

    Reordering and partitioning of distributed quantum circuits,

    D. Dadkhah, M. Zomorodi, S. E. Hosseini, P. Plawiak, and X. Zhou, “Reordering and partitioning of distributed quantum circuits, ”IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 70 329–70 341, 2022

    2022

  28. [28]

    Varsaw: Application-tailored measurement error mitigation for variational quantum algorithms,

    S. Dangwal, G. S. Ravi, P. Das, K. N. Smith, J. M. Baker, and F. T. Chong, “Varsaw: Application-tailored measurement error mitigation for variational quantum algorithms, ” inProceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Volume 4, ser. ASPLOS ’23. New York, NY, USA: Associatio...

    work page doi:10.1145/3623278.3624764 2024

  29. [29]

    Jigsaw: Boosting fidelity of nisq programs via measurement subsetting,

    P. Das, S. Tannu, and M. Qureshi, “Jigsaw: Boosting fidelity of nisq programs via measurement subsetting, ” inMICRO-54: 54th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, ser. MICRO ’21. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2021, p. 937–949. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3466752.3480044

    work page doi:10.1145/3466752.3480044 2021

  30. [30]

    A dynamic programming approach for distributing quantum circuits by bipartite graphs,

    Z. Davarzani, M. Zomorodi-Moghadam, M. Houshmand, and M. Nouri-Baygi, “A dynamic programming approach for distributing quantum circuits by bipartite graphs, ”Quantum Information Processing, vol. 19, pp. 1–18, 2020

    2020

  31. [31]

    Superconducting-qubit readout via low-backaction electro-optic transduction,

    R. Delaney, M. Urmey, S. Mittal, B. Brubaker, J. Kindem, P. Burns, C. Regal, and K. Lehnert, “Superconducting-qubit readout via low-backaction electro-optic transduction, ”Nature, vol. 606, no. 7914, pp. 489–493, 2022

    2022

  32. [32]

    Distributed quantum computing and network control for accelerated vqe,

    S. DiAdamo, M. Ghibaudi, and J. Cruise, “Distributed quantum computing and network control for accelerated vqe, ”IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 1–21, 2021

    2021

  33. [33]

    Magic-state functional units: mapping and scheduling multi-level distillation circuits for fault-tolerant quantum architectures,

    Y. Ding, A. Holmes, A. Javadi-Abhari, D. Franklin, M. Martonosi, and F. T. Chong, “Magic-state functional units: mapping and scheduling multi-level distillation circuits for fault-tolerant quantum architectures, ” inProceedings of the 51st Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, ser. MICRO-51. IEEE Press, 2018, p. 828–840. [Online]. ...

    work page doi:10.1109/micro.2018.00072 2018

  34. [34]

    Fast inference of deep neural networks in FPGAs for particle physics,

    J. Duarteet al., “Fast inference of deep neural networks in FPGAs for particle physics, ”JINST, vol. 13, no. 07, p. P07027, 2018

    2018

  35. [35]

    Revisiting the Mapping of Quantum Circuits: Entering the Multi-core Era

    P. Escofet, A. Ovide, M. Bandic, L. Prielinger, H. van Someren, S. Feld, E. Alarcon, S. Abadal, and C. Almudever, “Revisiting the mapping of quantum circuits: Entering the multi-core era, ”ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, vol. 6, no. 1, Jan. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3655029

    work page doi:10.1145/3655029 2025

  36. [36]

    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

    2021

  37. [37]

    Qiskit Hellinger Fidelity,

    “Qiskit Hellinger Fidelity, ” https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/api/qiskit/0.31/qiskit. quantum_info.hellinger_fidelity, accessed: 2025-05-05

    2025

  38. [38]

    Fowler, Matteo Mariantoni, John M

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, “Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation, ” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 86, p. 032324, Sep 2012. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.86.032324

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.86.032324 2012

  39. [39]

    How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits

    C. Gidney and M. Ekerå, “How to factor 2048 bit rsa integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits, ”Quantum, vol. 5, p. 433, Apr. 2021. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-04-15-433

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2021-04-15-433 2048

  40. [40]

    Qos: quantum operating system,

    E. Giortamis, F. Romão, N. Tornow, and P. Bhatotia, “Qos: quantum operating system, ” inProceedings of the 19th USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, ser. OSDI ’25. USA: USENIX Association, 2025

    2025

  41. [41]

    Qonductor: A cloud orchestrator for quantum computing,

    E. Giortamis, F. Romao, N. Tornow, D. Lugovoy, and P. Bhatotia, “Qonductor: A cloud orchestrator for quantum computing, ” inProceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, ser. SC ’25. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2025, p. 728–745. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org...

    work page doi:10.1145/3712285.3759785 2025

  42. [42]

    Midcircuit measurements on a single-species neutral alkali atom quantum processor,

    T. M. Graham, L. Phuttitarn, R. Chinnarasu, Y. Song, C. Poole, K. Jooya, J. Scott, A. Scott, P. Eichler, and M. Saffman, “Midcircuit measurements on a single-species neutral alkali atom quantum processor, ”Phys. Rev. X, vol. 13, p. 041051, Dec

  43. [43]

    Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041051

    [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041051

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041051

  44. [44]

    End-to-end workflow for machine learning-based qubit readout with qick and hls4ml,

    G. D. Guglielmo, B. Du, J. Campos, A. Boltasseva, A. V. Dixit, F. Fahim, Z. Kudyshev, S. Lopez, R. Ma, G. N. Perdue, N. Tran, O. Yesilyurt, and D. Bowring, “End-to-end workflow for machine learning-based qubit readout with qick and hls4ml, ” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.14663

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Klinq: Knowledge distillation-assisted lightweight neural network for qubit readout on fpga,

    X. Guo, T. Bunarjyan, D. Liu, B. Lienhard, and M. Schulz, “Klinq: Knowledge distillation-assisted lightweight neural network for qubit readout on fpga, ” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.03544

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Improving readout in quantum simulations with repetition codes,

    J. M. Günther, F. Tacchino, J. R. Wootton, I. Tavernelli, and P. K. Barkoutsos, “Improving readout in quantum simulations with repetition codes, ”Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 015009, nov 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/ac3386

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ac3386 2021

  47. [47]

    Distributed quantum computing with qmpi,

    T. Häner, D. S. Steiger, T. Hoefler, and M. Troyer, “Distributed quantum computing with qmpi, ” inProceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, ser. SC ’21. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3458817.3476172

    work page doi:10.1145/3458817.3476172 2021

  48. [48]

    Characterising the failure mechanisms of error-corrected quantum logic gates,

    R. Harper, C. Lainé, E. Hockings, C. McLauchlan, G. M. Nixon, B. J. Brown, and S. D. Bartlett, “Characterising the failure mechanisms of error-corrected quantum logic gates, ” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.07258

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Rapid high-fidelity multiplexed readout of superconducting qubits,

    J. Heinsoo, C. K. Andersen, A. Remm, S. Krinner, T. Walter, Y. Salathé, S. Gasparinetti, J.-C. Besse, A. Potočnik, A. Wallraff, and C. Eichler, “Rapid high-fidelity multiplexed readout of superconducting qubits, ” Phys. Rev. Appl., vol. 10, p. 034040, Sep 2018. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.10.034040

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.10.034040 2018

  50. [50]

    Lattice surgery translation for quantum computation,

    D. Herr, F. Nori, and S. J. Devitt, “Lattice surgery translation for quantum computation, ”New Journal of Physics, vol. 19, no. 1, p. 013034, Jan. 2017. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/aa5709

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/aa5709 2017

  51. [51]

    Sparse blossom: correcting a million errors per core second with minimum-weight matching,

    O. Higgott and C. Gidney, “Sparse blossom: correcting a million errors per core second with minimum-weight matching, ”Quantum, vol. 9, p. 1600, Jan. 2025. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2025-01-20-1600

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2025-01-20-1600 2025

  52. [52]

    Fowler and Simon Devitt and

    D. Horsman, A. G. Fowler, S. Devitt, and R. V. Meter, “Surface code quantum computing by lattice surgery, ”New Journal of Physics, vol. 14, no. 12, p. 123011, dec 2012. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/14/12/123011

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/14/12/123011 2012

  53. [53]

    Ibm quantum cloud compute resources,

    “Ibm quantum cloud compute resources, ” https://quantum.ibm.com/services/ resources, accessed: 2025-20-08

    2025

  54. [54]

    IBM Quantum delivers on performance challenge made two years ago,

    “IBM Quantum delivers on performance challenge made two years ago, ” https://www.ibm.com/quantum/blog/qdc-2024, accessed: 2025-08-20

    2024

  55. [55]

    Big cats: Entanglement in 120 qubits and beyond.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.09520, 2025

    A. Javadi-Abhari, S. Martiel, A. Seif, M. Takita, and K. X. Wei, “Big cats: entanglement in 120 qubits and beyond, ” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.09520 13

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Quantum computing with Qiskit

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross, B. R. Johnson, and J. M. Gambetta, “Quantum computing with qiskit, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.08810

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Teleporting two-qubit entanglement across 19 qubits on a superconducting quantum computer,

    H. Kang, J. F. Kam, G. J. Mooney, and L. C. Hollenberg, “Teleporting two-qubit entanglement across 19 qubits on a superconducting quantum computer, ”Phys. Rev. Appl., vol. 23, p. 014057, Jan 2025. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.23.014057

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.23.014057 2025

  58. [58]

    Quantum readout error mitigation via deep learning,

    J. Kim, B. Oh, Y. Chong, E. Hwang, and D. K. Park, “Quantum readout error mitigation via deep learning, ”New Journal of Physics, vol. 24, no. 7, p. 073009, jul 2022. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ac7b3d

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ac7b3d 2022

  59. [59]

    Theory of quantum error-correcting codes

    E. Knill and R. Laflamme, “Theory of quantum error-correcting codes, ” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 55, pp. 900–911, Feb 1997. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.55.900

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.55.900 1997

  60. [60]

    Towards large-scale quantum networks,

    W. Kozlowski and S. Wehner, “Towards large-scale quantum networks, ” in Proceedings of the Sixth Annual ACM International Conference on Nanoscale Computing and Communication, ser. NANOCOM ’19. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3345312.3345497

    work page doi:10.1145/3345312.3345497 2019

  61. [61]

    Engineering cryogenic setups for 100-qubit scale superconducting circuit systems,

    S. Krinner, S. Storz, P. Kurpiers, P. Magnard, J. Heinsoo, R. Keller, J. Luetolf, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, “Engineering cryogenic setups for 100-qubit scale superconducting circuit systems, ”EPJ Quantum Technology, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 2, 2019

    2019

  62. [62]

    Tiscc: A surface code compiler and resource estimator for trapped-ion processors,

    T. Leblond, R. S. Bennink, J. G. Lietz, and C. M. Seck, “Tiscc: A surface code compiler and resource estimator for trapped-ion processors, ” inProceedings of the SC ’23 Workshops of the International Conference on High Performance Computing, Network, Storage, and Analysis, ser. SC-W 2023. ACM, Nov. 2023, p. 1426–1435. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.or...

    work page doi:10.1145/3624062.3624214 2023

  63. [63]

    Deep-neural-network discrimination of multiplexed superconducting-qubit states,

    B. Lienhard, A. Vepsäläinen, L. C. Govia, C. R. Hoffer, J. Y. Qiu, D. Ristè, M. Ware, D. Kim, R. Winik, A. Melville, B. Niedzielski, J. Yoder, G. J. Ribeill, T. A. Ohki, H. K. Krovi, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, “Deep-neural-network discrimination of multiplexed superconducting-qubit states, ”Phys. Rev. Appl., vol. 17, p. 014024, Jan 20...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.17.014024 2022

  64. [64]

    A substrate scheduler for compiling arbitrary fault-tolerant graph states,

    S. Liu, N. Benchasattabuse, D. Q. Morgan, M. Hajdušek, S. J. Devitt, and R. Van Meter, “A substrate scheduler for compiling arbitrary fault-tolerant graph states, ” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE). IEEE, Sep. 2023, p. 870–880. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/QCE57702.2023.00101

    work page doi:10.1109/qce57702.2023.00101 2023

  65. [65]

    Mitigation of readout noise in near-term quantum devices by classical post-processing based on detector tomography,

    F. B. Maciejewski, Z. Zimborás, and M. Oszmaniec, “Mitigation of readout noise in near-term quantum devices by classical post-processing based on detector tomography, ”Quantum, vol. 4, p. 257, 2020

    2020

  66. [66]

    A near–quantum-limited josephson traveling-wave parametric amplifier,

    C. Macklin, K. O’Brien, D. Hover, M. E. Schwartz, V. Bolkhovsky, X. Zhang, W. D. Oliver, and I. Siddiqi, “A near–quantum-limited josephson traveling-wave parametric amplifier, ”Science, vol. 350, no. 6258, pp. 307–310, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aaa8525

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaa8525 2015

  67. [67]

    Machine learning for discriminating quantum measurement trajectories and improving readout,

    E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, A. D. Córcoles, and J. M. Chow, “Machine learning for discriminating quantum measurement trajectories and improving readout, ”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 114, p. 200501, May 2015. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.200501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.200501 2015

  68. [68]

    Single-shot qubit readout in circuit quantum electrodynamics,

    F. Mallet, F. R. Ong, A. Palacios-Laloy, F. Nguyen, P. Bertet, D. Vion, and D. Esteve, “Single-shot qubit readout in circuit quantum electrodynamics, ”Nature Physics, vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 791–795, 2009

    2009

  69. [69]

    Scaling qubit readout with hardware efficient machine learning architectures,

    S. Maurya, C. N. Mude, W. D. Oliver, B. Lienhard, and S. Tannu, “Scaling qubit readout with hardware efficient machine learning architectures, ” inProceedings of the 50th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, ser. ISCA ’23. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3579371.3589042

    work page doi:10.1145/3579371.3589042 2023

  70. [70]

    MoPAC: Efficiently Mitigating Rowhammer with Probabilistic Activation Counting,

    S. Maurya and S. Tannu, “Synchronization for fault-tolerant quantum computers, ” inProceedings of the 52nd Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, ser. SIGARCH ’25. ACM, Jun. 2025, p. 1370–1385. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3695053.3730991

    work page doi:10.1145/3695053.3730991 2025

  71. [71]

    A hardware-accelerated qubit control system for quantum information processing,

    N. Messaoudi, C. Crocker, and M. Almendros, “A hardware-accelerated qubit control system for quantum information processing, ” in2020 XXXV Conference on Design of Circuits and Integrated Systems (DCIS), Nov 2020, pp. 1–5

    2020

  72. [72]

    Quantum chemistry simulation of ground-and excited-state properties of the sulfonium cation on a superconducting quantum processor,

    M. Motta, G. O. Jones, J. E. Rice, T. P. Gujarati, R. Sakuma, I. Liepuoniute, J. M. Garcia, and Y.-y. Ohnishi, “Quantum chemistry simulation of ground-and excited-state properties of the sulfonium cation on a superconducting quantum processor, ”Chemical Science, vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 2915–2927, 2023

    2023

  73. [73]

    Efficient and scalable architectures for multi-level superconducting qubit readout,

    C. N. Mude, S. Maurya, B. Lienhard, and S. Tannu, “Efficient and scalable architectures for multi-level superconducting qubit readout, ” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.08982

    work page arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.040326

    P. D. Nation, H. Kang, N. Sundaresan, and J. M. Gambetta, “Scal- able mitigation of measurement errors on quantum computers, ” PRX Quantum, vol. 2, p. 040326, Nov 2021. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.040326

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.040326 2021

  75. [75]

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

    2010

  76. [76]

    Fault-tolerant, high-level quantum circuits: form, compilation and description,

    A. Paler, I. Polian, K. Nemoto, and S. J. Devitt, “Fault-tolerant, high-level quantum circuits: form, compilation and description, ”Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 2, no. 2, p. 025003, Apr. 2017. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/aa66eb

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/aa66eb 2017

  77. [77]

    PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga, A. Desmaison, A. Köpf, E. Yang, Z. DeVito, M. Raison, A. Tejani, S. Chilamkurthy, B. Steiner, L. Fang, J. Bai, and S. Chintala, “Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library, ” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/...

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2019

  78. [78]

    Experimental evaluation of nisq quantum computers: Error measurement, characterization, and implications,

    T. Patel, A. Potharaju, B. Li, R. B. Roy, and D. Tiwari, “Experimental evaluation of nisq quantum computers: Error measurement, characterization, and implications, ” inSC20: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, Nov 2020, pp. 1–15

    2020

  79. [79]

    Role of relaxation in the quantum measurement of a superconducting qubit using a nonlinear oscillator,

    T. Picot, A. Lupaşcu, S. Saito, C. J. P. M. Harmans, and J. E. Mooij, “Role of relaxation in the quantum measurement of a superconducting qubit using a nonlinear oscillator, ”Phys. Rev. B, vol. 78, p. 132508, Oct 2008. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.78.132508

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.78.132508 2008

  80. [80]

    Advances in quantum teleportation,

    S. Pirandola, J. Eisert, C. Weedbrook, A. Furusawa, and S. L. Braunstein, “Advances in quantum teleportation, ”Nature photonics, vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 641–652, 2015

    2015

Showing first 80 references.