pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.03854 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Space-Time Tradeoffs of Pauli-Based Computation in Distributed qLDPC Architectures

Naphan Benchasattabuse , Michal Hajdu\v{s}ek , Rodney Van Meter
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 16:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords Pauli-based computationdistributed quantum computingqLDPC codessurface codequantum optimizationspace-time tradeoffsfault-tolerant quantum algorithms
0
0 comments X

The pith

Large qLDPC code blocks run Pauli-based computation up to an order of magnitude faster than surface codes in distributed architectures by relocating qubit groups to free nodes.

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

The paper investigates how error-correcting code block size affects the runtime of Pauli-based computation in a distributed quantum computing setup called Q-Fly, where remote Bell pair generation is the main cost. It shows that larger qLDPC blocks, combined with moving groups of qubits to unused nodes, cut the number of network operations and deliver execution times up to ten times shorter than surface-code versions when running quantum optimization algorithms. A reader would care because the result positions Pauli-based computation as a workable baseline for near-term distributed hardware instead of waiting for more advanced transversal gates.

Core claim

In distributed quantum computing architectures at intermediate scale, with limited node capacities but abundant network nodes, Pauli-based computation on large qLDPC code blocks outperforms the surface code baseline in execution time by up to an order of magnitude for quantum optimization algorithms. The performance gain comes from relocating groups of qubits to free nodes, which bypasses the sequential bottleneck of Pauli measurements and thereby minimizes remote Bell pair generations. This establishes Pauli-based computation as a competitive model and a practical compilation baseline for qLDPC systems before more efficient gates are introduced.

What carries the argument

The mechanism of moving groups of qubits to free network nodes to bypass the sequential bottleneck of Pauli measurements, which reduces the total number of remote Bell pair generations required.

If this is right

  • Large qLDPC blocks reduce overall network operations compared with surface codes when running Pauli-based computation.
  • Execution time becomes less strictly proportional to T-gate count once qubit relocation is allowed.
  • Pauli-based computation can serve as an effective starting point for compiling algorithms onto qLDPC hardware.
  • Distributed architectures with plentiful nodes can exploit block-size freedom to improve runtime on optimization workloads.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar relocation strategies might improve other sequential compilation models beyond Pauli-based computation in distributed settings.
  • The observed tradeoff suggests that dynamic node allocation policies could be tuned specifically for different classes of quantum algorithms.
  • Hardware demonstrations of qubit movement with low error overhead would directly test whether the reported speedups remain realistic.

Load-bearing premise

That moving groups of qubits to free nodes can be performed without introducing substantial extra overhead, latency, or errors while still bypassing the sequential limit of Pauli-based computation.

What would settle it

A concrete simulation or run of a quantum optimization algorithm on the Q-Fly architecture where the wall-clock execution time using large qLDPC blocks with qubit relocation is equal to or longer than the time using surface-code blocks under the same network and node constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03854 by Michal Hajdu\v{s}ek, Naphan Benchasattabuse, Rodney Van Meter.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example of a Q-Fly architecture with five groups, each view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Partial circuit illustrating the controlled amplitude view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Pauli-based computation (PBC) provides a universal framework for executing fault-tolerant quantum algorithms using Pauli measurements and magic states. In monolithic architectures, the serialized nature of PBC directly ties runtime to a circuit's T-gate count, making it slow on metrics like circuit depth. However, in distributed quantum computing (DQC), the primary bottleneck is remote Bell pair generation. We investigate the tradeoff between error-correcting code block size and execution time of PBC within the Q-Fly architecture at intermediate scale, limiting individual node capacities to reflect near-term constraints while supplying abundant network nodes to minimize routing and compilation effects. We find that large qLDPC code blocks outperform the surface code baseline in terms of execution time by up to an order of magnitude when evaluated against quantum optimization algorithms. By moving groups of qubits to free nodes to bypass the sequential bottleneck of PBC, the large-block architecture minimizes network operations and achieves faster overall execution. This demonstrates that PBC is a competitive model in the distributed regime, establishing it as a practical compilation baseline for qLDPC systems before invoking more efficient transversal or homological gates.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes space-time tradeoffs for Pauli-based computation (PBC) in distributed quantum computing using the Q-Fly architecture with qLDPC codes. It claims that large qLDPC code blocks, by relocating groups of logical qubits to free nodes, outperform surface-code baselines by up to an order of magnitude in execution time for quantum optimization algorithms, primarily by minimizing remote Bell-pair operations and bypassing PBC's sequential measurement bottleneck while respecting per-node capacity limits.

Significance. If the central performance claims hold under more realistic network constraints, the work would be significant for intermediate-scale distributed quantum computing: it establishes PBC as a viable compilation baseline for qLDPC systems and quantifies how code-block size interacts with network resources. The simulations comparing qLDPC and surface codes provide concrete data on execution-time tradeoffs, which could guide architectural choices before more advanced transversal or homological gates are invoked.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and simulation setup] The order-of-magnitude execution-time advantage for large qLDPC blocks (stated in the abstract and results) is obtained under the assumption of an unlimited supply of spare network nodes that allows qubit-group relocation to parallelize PBC measurements at negligible extra cost. No quantitative sensitivity analysis or bound is given on the additional remote Bell pairs and latency incurred when node count is finite, which is the realistic regime and could shrink or eliminate the reported net savings relative to the surface-code baseline.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract asserts an 'order-of-magnitude improvement' from simulations on quantum optimization algorithms but supplies no details on the underlying error models, exact performance metrics (e.g., breakdown of execution time into computation vs. network components), simulation parameters, or data-exclusion criteria. This prevents independent verification that the data support the central claim as stated.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Architectural model] The notation for node-capacity limits and the precise definition of 'network operations' minimized by relocation could be formalized with an explicit equation or pseudocode snippet to improve reproducibility.
  2. [Discussion] A brief discussion of how the reported speedups compare to known analytic bounds on distributed PBC (e.g., relating T-count to Bell-pair consumption) would help situate the numerical results.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help clarify the scope and presentation of our results. We address each major comment below with clarifications and proposed revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and simulation setup] The order-of-magnitude execution-time advantage for large qLDPC blocks (stated in the abstract and results) is obtained under the assumption of an unlimited supply of spare network nodes that allows qubit-group relocation to parallelize PBC measurements at negligible extra cost. No quantitative sensitivity analysis or bound is given on the additional remote Bell pairs and latency incurred when node count is finite, which is the realistic regime and could shrink or eliminate the reported net savings relative to the surface-code baseline.

    Authors: The manuscript deliberately adopts the abundant-node regime (explicitly stated in the abstract and Section II) to isolate the space-time benefits of large qLDPC blocks and PBC parallelization from routing overheads, which is a relevant intermediate-scale scenario when network resources can be scaled. We agree that finite-node constraints warrant further analysis. In the revision we will add a dedicated sensitivity study quantifying the degradation in advantage as spare nodes decrease, including explicit bounds on extra Bell-pair generation and latency relative to the surface-code baseline. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The abstract asserts an 'order-of-magnitude improvement' from simulations on quantum optimization algorithms but supplies no details on the underlying error models, exact performance metrics (e.g., breakdown of execution time into computation vs. network components), simulation parameters, or data-exclusion criteria. This prevents independent verification that the data support the central claim as stated.

    Authors: The abstract is constrained by length, but the full manuscript (Sections III and IV, Figures 3-5, and Tables I-II) specifies the depolarizing error model, the execution-time metric with explicit breakdowns into local computation and remote Bell-pair components, the simulation parameters (code distances, node capacities, QAOA instances), and reports all simulation runs without exclusion. We will revise the abstract to include a concise reference to these elements and the key modeling assumptions. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: performance claims arise from explicit architectural simulations under stated node-abundance assumptions

full rationale

The paper evaluates PBC runtime in distributed qLDPC versus surface-code settings via simulation of Pauli-measurement sequences and Bell-pair costs. The reported order-of-magnitude advantage is obtained by counting operations under the explicit modeling choice of abundant spare nodes; this choice is declared as a modeling limit rather than derived from prior equations or self-citations. No load-bearing step equates a fitted parameter to a prediction by construction, nor does any uniqueness theorem reduce to the authors' own prior work. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against the supplied simulation inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about network bottlenecks and node abundance in the Q-Fly architecture, plus simulation parameters for code block sizes that are not specified in the abstract.

free parameters (2)
  • individual node capacity limit
    Set to reflect near-term hardware constraints
  • number of available network nodes
    Assumed abundant to minimize routing effects
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Primary bottleneck in distributed setting is remote Bell pair generation rather than local operations
    Stated directly in the abstract as the shift from monolithic PBC runtime

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5504 in / 1245 out tokens · 66664 ms · 2026-05-07T16:29:53.000197+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

90 extracted references · 86 canonical work pages · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Time/Space Trade-Offs for Reversible Computation,

    C. H. Bennett, “Time/Space Trade-Offs for Reversible Computation,” SIAM Journal on Computing , vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 766–776, Aug. 1989, doi:10.1137/0218053

    work page doi:10.1137/0218053 1989

  2. [2]

    On Time V ersus Space,

    J. Hopcroft, W. Paul, and L. V aliant, “On Time V ersus Space,” J. ACM, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 332–337, Apr. 1977, doi:10.1145/322003.322015

    work page doi:10.1145/322003.322015 1977

  3. [3]

    A Time-Space Tradeoff for Sorting on a Gen- eral Sequential Model of Computation,

    A. Borodin and S. Cook, “A Time-Space Tradeoff for Sorting on a Gen- eral Sequential Model of Computation,” SIAM Journal on Computing , vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 287–297, 1982, doi:10.1137/0211022

    work page doi:10.1137/0211022 1982

  4. [4]

    Quantum Fan-out is Powerful,

    P . Hoyer and R. Spalek, “Quantum Fan-out is Powerful,”Theory of Com- puting, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 81–103, 2005, doi:10.4086/toc.2005.v001a005

    work page doi:10.4086/toc.2005.v001a005 2005

  5. [5]

    Moore, Quantum Circuits: Fanout, Parity, and Count- ing (1999), arXiv:quant-ph/9903046

    C. Moore, “Quantum Circuits: Fanout, Parity, and Counting,” Mar. 1999, doi:10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/9903046

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/9903046 1999

  6. [6]

    Quantum Threshold is Powerful,

    D. Grier and J. Morris, “Quantum Threshold is Powerful,” Nov. 2024, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2411.04953

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.04953 2024

  7. [7]

    Counting, fanout and the complexity of quantum ACC,

    F. Green, S. Homer, C. Moore, and C. Pollett, “Counting, fanout and the complexity of quantum ACC,” Quantum Info. Comput. , vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 35–65, Dec. 2002

    2002

  8. [8]

    Analysis of the trade-off between spatial and temporal resources for measurement-based quantum computation,

    J. Miyazaki, M. Hajdušek, and M. Murao, “Analysis of the trade-off between spatial and temporal resources for measurement-based quantum computation,” Physical Review A , vol. 91, no. 5, p. 052302, May 2015, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.91.052302

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.91.052302 2015

  9. [9]

    Time-optimal quantum computation

    A. G. Fowler, “Time-optimal quantum computation,” Feb. 2013, doi:10.48550/arXiv.1210.4626

    work page Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.1210.4626 2013

  10. [10]

    A game of surface codes: Large-scale quantum computing with lattice surgery,

    D. Litinski, “A Game of Surface Codes: Large-Scale Quantum Com- puting with Lattice Surgery,” Quantum, vol. 3, p. 128, Mar. 2019, doi:10.22331/q-2019-03-05-128

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2019-03-05-128 2019

  11. [11]

    Topological fault- tolerance in cluster state quantum computation,

    R. Raussendorf, J. Harrington, and K. Goyal, “Topological fault- tolerance in cluster state quantum computation,” New Journal of Physics, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 199–199, Jun. 2007, doi:10.1088/1367-2630/9/6/199

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/9/6/199 2007

  12. [12]

    Frequent Itemset Discovery

    H. Buhrman and H. Röhrig, “Distributed Quantum Computing,” in Math- ematical F oundations of Computer Science 2003, B. Rovan and P . V ojtáš, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2003, pp. 1–20, doi:10.1007/978-3- 540-45138-9_1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3- 2003

  13. [13]

    Physical Review A59, 4249–4254 (1999).https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.59.4249

    J. I. Cirac, A. K. Ekert, S. F. Huelga, and C. Macchiavello, “Distributed quantum computation over noisy channels,” Physical Review A , vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 4249–4254, Jun. 1999, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.59.4249

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.59.4249 1999

  14. [14]

    Topological quantum computing with a very noisy network and local error rates approaching one percent,

    N. H. Nickerson, Y . Li, and S. C. Benjamin, “Topological quantum computing with a very noisy network and local error rates approaching one percent,” Nature Communications, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 1756, Apr. 2013, doi:10.1038/ncomms2773

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms2773 2013

  15. [15]

    Physical Review A89, 022317 (2014).https://doi

    C. Monroe et al. , “Large-scale modular quantum-computer architecture with atomic memory and photonic interconnects,” Physical Review A , vol. 89, no. 2, p. 022317, Feb. 2014, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.89.022317

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.89.022317 2014

  16. [16]

    Multicore Quantum Computing,

    H. Jnane, B. Undseth, Z. Cai, S. C. Benjamin, and B. Koczor, “Multicore Quantum Computing,” Physical Review Applied , vol. 18, no. 4, p. 044064, Oct. 2022, doi:10.1103/PhysRevApplied.18.044064

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.18.044064 2022

  17. [17]

    Arquin: Architectures for multinode superconducting quantum computers,

    J. Ang et al. , “ARQUIN: Architectures for Multinode Superconducting Quantum Computers,” ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 19:1–19:59, Sep. 2024, doi:10.1145/3674151

    work page doi:10.1145/3674151 2024

  18. [18]

    Wehner, D

    S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, “Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead,” Science, vol. 362, no. 6412, p. eaam9288, Oct. 2018, doi:10.1126/science.aam9288

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aam9288 2018

  19. [19]

    Awschalom, K

    D. Awschalom et al. , “Development of Quantum Interconnects (QuICs) for Next-Generation Information Technologies,” PRX Quantum , vol. 2, no. 1, p. 017002, Feb. 2021, doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.017002

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.017002 2021

  20. [20]

    SwitchQNet: Optimizing Distributed Quantum Com- puting for Quantum Data Centers with Switch Networks,

    H. Zhang et al. , “SwitchQNet: Optimizing Distributed Quantum Com- puting for Quantum Data Centers with Switch Networks,” in Proceed- ings of the 52nd Annual International Symposium on Computer Architec- ture, ser. ISCA ’25. New Y ork, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Jun. 2025, pp. 1449–1463, doi:10.1145/3695053.3731046

    work page doi:10.1145/3695053.3731046 2025

  21. [21]

    A Multilevel Framework for Partitioning Quantum Circuits,

    F. Burt, K.-C. Chen, and K. K. Leung, “A Multilevel Framework for Partitioning Quantum Circuits,” Quantum, vol. 10, p. 1984, Jan. 2026, doi:10.22331/q-2026-01-22-1984

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2026-01-22-1984 1984

  22. [22]

    Circuit Partitioning and Transmission Cost Optimization in Distributed Quantum Circuits,

    X. Chen, Z. Chen, P . Zhu, X. Cheng, and Z. Guan, “Circuit Partitioning and Transmission Cost Optimization in Distributed Quantum Circuits,” Mar. 2025, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2407.05953

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.05953 2025

  23. [23]

    TeleSABRE: Layout Synthesis in Multi-Core Quantum Systems with Teleport Interconnect,

    E. Russo, E. Vinciguerra, M. Palesi, D. Patti, G. Ascia, and V . Catania, “TeleSABRE: Layout Synthesis in Multi-Core Quantum Systems with Teleport Interconnect,” in 2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , Aug. 2025, pp. 749–758, doi:10.1109/QCE65121.2025.00086

    work page doi:10.1109/qce65121.2025.00086 2025

  24. [24]

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

    P . Escofetet al., “Revisiting the Mapping of Quantum Circuits: Entering the Multi-core Era,” ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing , vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 4:1–4:26, Jan. 2025, doi:10.1145/3655029

    work page doi:10.1145/3655029 2025

  25. [25]

    Qubit Allocation for Dis- tributed Quantum Computing,

    Y . Mao, Y . Liu, and Y . Y ang, “Qubit Allocation for Dis- tributed Quantum Computing,” in IEEE INFOCOM 2023 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications , May 2023, pp. 1–10, doi:10.1109/INFOCOM53939.2023.10228915

    work page doi:10.1109/infocom53939.2023.10228915 2023

  26. [26]

    DQC-QR: Distributing and Routing Quantum Circuits with Minimum Execution Time,

    R. Sundaram, H. Gupta, and CR. Ramakrishnan, “DQC-QR: Distributing and Routing Quantum Circuits with Minimum Execution Time,” ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing , vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 30:1–30:26, Sep. 2025, doi:10.1145/3757069

    work page doi:10.1145/3757069 2025

  27. [27]

    Max Planck: the reluctant revolutionary

    P . Andres-Martinez et al. , “Distributing circuits over heterogeneous, modular quantum computing network architectures,” Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 9, no. 4, p. 045021, Aug. 2024, doi:10.1088/2058- 9565/ad6734

    work page doi:10.1088/2058- 2024

  28. [28]

    Optimized quantum circuit partitioning across multiple quantum processors,

    E. Kaur, H. Shapourian, J. Zhao, M. Kilzer, R. Kompella, and R. Neja- bati, “Optimized quantum circuit partitioning across multiple quantum processors,” in Quantum Computing, Communication, and Simulation V , vol. 13391. SPIE, Mar. 2025, pp. 152–156, doi:10.1117/12.3042502

    work page doi:10.1117/12.3042502 2025

  29. [29]

    Optimized compilation for distributed quantum computing,

    M. Bandini, D. Ferrari, S. Carretta, and M. Amoretti, “Opti- mized Compilation for Distributed Quantum Computing,” Feb. 2026, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.24062

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.24062 2026

  30. [30]

    Optimal local implementation of nonlocal quantum gates

    J. Eisert, K. Jacobs, P . Papadopoulos, and M. B. Plenio, “Optimal local implementation of non-local quantum gates,” Physical Review A, vol. 62, no. 5, p. 052317, Oct. 2000, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.62.052317

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.62.052317 2000

  31. [31]

    Gisin, Quantum Physics arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.quant- ph/0702021 (2007), arXiv:quant-ph/0702021

    A. Yimsiriwattana and S. J. Lomonaco, “Generalized GHZ States and Distributed Quantum Computing,” Mar. 2004, doi:10.48550/arXiv.quant- ph/0402148

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.quant- 2004

  32. [32]

    Network- Assisted Collective Operations for Efficient Distributed Quantum Com- puting,

    I. F. Llovo, G. Díaz-Camacho, N. C. Lago, and A. G. Tato, “Network- Assisted Collective Operations for Efficient Distributed Quantum Com- puting,” IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering , vol. 6, pp. 1–14, 2025, doi:10.1109/TQE.2025.3619387

    work page doi:10.1109/tqe.2025.3619387 2025

  33. [33]

    On Distributed Quantum Computing with Distributed Fan- Out Operations,

    S. W. Loke, “On Distributed Quantum Computing with Distributed Fan- Out Operations,” Jan. 2026, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2601.14734

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.14734 2026

  34. [34]

    Bravyi, G

    S. Bravyi, G. Smith, and J. A. Smolin, “Trading Classical and Quantum Computational Resources,” Physical Review X , vol. 6, no. 2, p. 021043, Jun. 2016, doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.6.021043

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.6.021043 2016

  35. [35]

    Magic State Distillation: Not as Costly as You Think , volume =

    D. Litinski, “Magic State Distillation: Not as Costly as Y ou Think,” Quantum, vol. 3, p. 205, Dec. 2019, doi:10.22331/q-2019-12-02-205

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2019-12-02-205 2019

  36. [36]

    Quantum Hamlets: Distributed Compilation of Large Algorithmic Graph States

    A. Micciche, N. Benchasattabuse, A. McGregor, M. Hajdušek, R. V an Meter, and S. Krastanov, “Quantum Hamlets: Distributed Compilation of Large Algorithmic Graph States,” Mar. 2026, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2603.06387

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.06387 2026

  37. [37]

    Multipartite Entanglement Distribution in Quantum Networks using Subgraph Complementations,

    A. Sen, K. Goodenough, and D. Towsley, “Multipartite Entanglement Distribution in Quantum Networks using Subgraph Complementations,” Quantum, vol. 9, p. 1911, Nov. 2025, doi:10.22331/q-2025-11-17-1911

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2025-11-17-1911 1911

  38. [38]

    Minimising the number of edges in LC-equivalent graph states,

    H. Sharma, K. Goodenough, J. Borregaard, F. Rozp˛ edek, and J. Helsen, “Minimising the number of edges in LC-equivalent graph states,” Jan. 2026, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2506.00292

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.00292 2026

  39. [39]

    Tour de gross: A modular quantum computer based on bivariate bicycle codes

    T. J. Y oder et al. , “Tour de gross: A modular quantum computer based on bivariate bicycle codes,” Jun. 2025, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2506.03094

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.03094 2025

  40. [40]

    Extractors: QLDPC Architectures for Efficient Pauli-Based Computation,

    Z. He, A. Cowtan, D. J. Williamson, and T. J. Y oder, “Extractors: QLDPC Architectures for Efficient Pauli-Based Computation,” Oct. 2025, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.10390

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.10390 2025

  41. [41]

    The Pinnacle Architecture: Reducing the cost of breaking RSA-2048 to 100 000 physical qubits using quantum LDPC codes

    P . Webster et al. , “The Pinnacle Architecture: Reducing the cost of breaking RSA-2048 to 100 000 physical qubits using quantum LDPC codes,” Feb. 2026, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.11457

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.11457 2048

  42. [42]

    Heterogeneous architectures enable a 138x reduction in physical qubit requirements for fault-tolerant quantum computing under detailed accounting

    P . S. Mundada et al., “Heterogeneous architectures enable a 138x reduc- tion in physical qubit requirements for fault-tolerant quantum computing under detailed accounting,” Apr. 2026, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2604.06319

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.06319 2026

  43. [43]

    Shor’s algorithm is possible with as few as 10,000 reconfigurable atomic qubits (2026)

    M. Cain et al. , “Shor’s algorithm is possible with as few as 10,000 re- configurable atomic qubits,” Mar. 2026, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2603.28627

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.28627 2026

  44. [44]

    Q-Fly: An Optical Interconnect for Modular Quantum Computers,

    D. Sakuma et al., “Q-Fly: An Optical Interconnect for Modular Quantum Computers,” Dec. 2025, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2412.09299

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.09299 2025

  45. [45]

    A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, “A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm,” Nov. 2014, doi:10.48550/arXiv.1411.4028

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.1411.4028 2014

  46. [46]

    Machine behaviour

    S. P . Jordan et al. , “Optimization by decoded quantum interferometry,” Nature, vol. 646, no. 8086, pp. 831–836, Oct. 2025, doi:10.1038/s41586- 025-09527-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586- 2025

  47. [47]

    PRX Quantum , volume =

    S. Boulebnane and A. Montanaro, “Solving Boolean Satisfiabil- ity Problems With The Quantum Approximate Optimization Al- gorithm,” PRX Quantum , vol. 5, no. 3, p. 030348, Sep. 2024, doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.030348. 11

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.030348 2024

  48. [48]

    Evidence of Scaling Advantage for the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm on a Classically Intractable Problem

    R. Shaydulin et al. , “Evidence of scaling advantage for the quantum approximate optimization algorithm on a classically intractable prob- lem,” Science Advances , vol. 10, no. 22, p. eadm6761, May 2024, doi:10.1126/sciadv.adm6761

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.adm6761 2024

  49. [49]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.10967 , year=

    T. Khattar et al. , “V erifiable Quantum Advantage via Optimized DQI Circuits,” Oct. 2025, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2510.10967

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.10967 2025

  50. [50]

    Litinski and N

    D. Litinski and N. Nickerson, “Active volume: An architecture for efficient fault-tolerant quantum computers with limited non-local con- nections,” Nov. 2022, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2211.15465

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.15465 2022

  51. [51]

    Quantum repeaters: From quantum networks to the quantum internet,

    K. Azuma et al. , “Quantum repeaters: From quantum networks to the quantum internet,” Reviews of Modern Physics , vol. 95, no. 4, p. 045006, Dec. 2023, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.95.045006

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.95.045006 2023

  52. [52]

    Quantum data center infrastructures: A scalable architectural design perspective,

    H. Shapourian et al. , “Quantum Data Center Infrastructures: A Scalable Architectural Design Perspective,” Jan. 2025, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2501.05598

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.05598 2025

  53. [53]

    Pouryousef, E

    S. Pouryousef, E. Kaur, H. Shapourian, D. Towsley, R. Kom- pella, and R. Nejabati, “Benchmarking Quantum Data Center Ar- chitectures: A Performance and Scalability Perspective,” Jan. 2026, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2601.01353

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.01353 2026

  54. [54]

    Scalable Quantum Networks: Congestion-Free Hierarchical Entanglement Rout- ing with Error Correction,

    H. Choi, M. G. Davis, Á. G. Iñesta, and D. R. Englund, “Scalable Quantum Networks: Congestion-Free Hierarchical Entanglement Rout- ing with Error Correction,” Sep. 2023, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2306.09216

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.09216 2023

  55. [55]

    Optimal Switching Networks for Paired-Egress Bell State Analyzer Pools,

    M. Koyama et al., “Optimal Switching Networks for Paired-Egress Bell State Analyzer Pools,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quan- tum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , vol. 01, Montreal, QC, Canada, Sep. 2024, pp. 1897–1907, doi:10.1109/QCE60285.2024.00219

    work page doi:10.1109/qce60285.2024.00219 2024

  56. [56]

    and Gambetta, Jay M

    S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P . Rall, and T. J. Y oder, “High-threshold and low-overhead fault-tolerant quan- tum memory,” Nature, vol. 627, no. 8005, pp. 778–782, Mar. 2024, doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07107-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07107-7 2024

  57. [57]

    Magic state cultivation: growing T states as cheap as CNOT gates

    C. Gidney, N. Shutty, and C. Jones, “Magic state cultiva- tion: Growing T states as cheap as CNOT gates,” Sep. 2024, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2409.17595

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.17595 2024

  58. [58]

    Constant-Overhead Fault-Tolerant Bell-Pair Distillation Using High-Rate Codes,

    J. P . Bonilla Ataides et al., “Constant-Overhead Fault-Tolerant Bell-Pair Distillation Using High-Rate Codes,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 135, no. 13, p. 130804, Sep. 2025, doi:10.1103/s39k-r2kq

    work page doi:10.1103/s39k-r2kq 2025

  59. [59]

    High-Rate and High-Fidelity Modular Inter- connects between Neutral Atom Quantum Processors,

    Y . Li and J. D. Thompson, “High-Rate and High-Fidelity Modular Inter- connects between Neutral Atom Quantum Processors,” PRX Quantum , vol. 5, no. 2, p. 020363, Jun. 2024, doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.020363

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.020363 2024

  60. [60]

    Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer

    P . W. Shor, “Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer,” SIAM Review , vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 303–332, Jun. 1999, doi:10.1137/S0036144598347011

    work page doi:10.1137/s0036144598347011 1999

  61. [61]

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

    J. Golden, A. Bärtschi, D. O’Malley, and S. Eidenbenz, “Numerical Evidence for Exponential Speed-Up of QAOA over Unstructured Search for Approximate Constrained Optimization,” 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , vol. 01, pp. 496–505, Sep. 2023, doi:10.1109/QCE57702.2023.00063

    work page doi:10.1109/qce57702.2023.00063 2023

  62. [62]

    Reliable evaluation of adversarial robustness with an ensemble of diverse parameter-free attacks

    A. Rosmanis, “A nearly linear-time Decoded Quantum Interferometry algorithm for the Optimal Polynomial Intersection problem,” 2026, doi:10.48550/ARXIV .2601.15171

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv 2026

  63. [63]

    Short-Depth Circuits for Dicke State Preparation,

    N. Benchasattabuse, T. Satoh, M. Hajdušek, and R. V an Me- ter, “Amplitude Amplification for Optimization via Subdivided Phase Oracle,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Quan- tum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , Sep. 2022, pp. 22–30, doi:10.1109/QCE53715.2022.00020

    work page doi:10.1109/qce53715.2022.00020 2022

  64. [64]

    Parameter Setting in Quantum Approximate Optimization of Weighted Problems

    S. H. Sureshbabu et al. , “Parameter Setting in Quantum Approximate Optimization of Weighted Problems,” Quantum, vol. 8, p. 1231, Jan. 2024, doi:10.22331/q-2024-01-18-1231

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2024-01-18-1231 2024

  65. [65]

    Polylogarithmic-time deterministic net- work decomposition and distributed derandomization

    J. Basso, D. Gamarnik, S. Mei, and L. Zhou, “Performance and limitations of the QAOA at constant levels on large sparse hypergraphs and spin glass models,” in 2022 IEEE 63rd Annual Symposium on F oundations of Computer Science (FOCS) , Oct. 2022, pp. 335–343, doi:10.1109/FOCS54457.2022.00039

    work page doi:10.1109/focs54457.2022.00039 2022

  66. [66]

    https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2022-07-07-759

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, and L. Zhou, “The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm and the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick Model at Infinite Size,” Quantum, vol. 6, p. 759, Jul. 2022, doi:10.22331/q-2022-07-07-759

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2022-07-07-759 2022

  67. [67]

    Analytical framework for quan- tum alternating operator ansätze,

    S. Hadfield, T. Hogg, and E. G. Rieffel, “Analytical framework for quan- tum alternating operator ansätze,” Quantum Science and Technology , vol. 8, no. 1, p. 015017, Jan. 2023, doi:10.1088/2058-9565/aca3ce

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/aca3ce 2023

  68. [68]

    Counterdiabaticity and the quantum approx- imate optimization algorithm,

    J. Wurtz and P . J. Love, “Counterdiabaticity and the quantum approx- imate optimization algorithm,” Quantum, vol. 6, p. 635, Jan. 2022, doi:10.22331/q-2022-01-27-635

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2022-01-27-635 2022

  69. [69]

    Lower bounds on the number of rounds of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm required for guaranteed approximation ratios,

    N. Benchasattabuse, A. Bärtschi, L. P . García-Pintos, J. Golden, N. Lemons, and S. Eidenbenz, “Lower bounds on the number of rounds of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm required for guaranteed approximation ratios,” Physical Review A , vol. 111, no. 6, p. 062411, Jun. 2025, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.111.062411

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.111.062411 2025

  70. [70]

    Threshold for Fault-tolerant Quantum Advantage with the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm,

    S. Omanakuttan et al., “Threshold for Fault-tolerant Quantum Advantage with the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm,” Apr. 2025, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2504.01897

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.01897 2025

  71. [71]

    On lattices, learning with errors, random linear codes, and cryptography,

    O. Regev, “On lattices, learning with errors, random linear codes, and cryptography,” in Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , ser. STOC ’05. New Y ork, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, May 2005, pp. 84–93, doi:10.1145/1060590.1060603

    work page doi:10.1145/1060590.1060603 2005

  72. [72]

    The Quantum Decoding Problem,

    A. Chailloux and J.-P . Tillich, “The Quantum Decoding Problem,” in 19th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Com- munication and Cryptography (TQC 2024) , ser. Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), F. Magniez and A. B. Grilo, Eds., vol. 310. Dagstuhl, Germany: Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2024, pp. 6...

    work page doi:10.4230/lipics.tqc.2024.6 2024

  73. [73]

    TeleSABRE: Layout Synthesis in Multi-Core Quantum Systems with Teleport Interconnect,

    N. Patamawisut, N. Benchasattabuse, M. Hajdušek, and R. V an Me- ter, “Quantum Circuit Design for Decoded Quantum Interferometry,” in 2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , vol. 01, Albuquerque, NM, USA, Aug. 2025, pp. 291–301, doi:10.1109/QCE65121.2025.00041

    work page doi:10.1109/qce65121.2025.00041 2025

  74. [74]

    No quantum advantage in decoded quantum interferometry for maxcut.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.19966, 2025

    O. Parekh, “No Quantum Advantage in Decoded Quantum Interferom- etry for MaxCut,” Sep. 2025, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2509.19966

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.19966 2025

  75. [75]

    Halving the cost of quantum addition,

    C. Gidney, “Halving the cost of quantum addition,” Quantum, vol. 2, p. 74, Jun. 2018, doi:10.22331/q-2018-06-18-74

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2018-06-18-74 2018

  76. [76]

    Jones, Low-overhead constructions for the fault-tolerant toffoli gate, Physical Review A87, 10.1103/physreva.87.022328 (2013)

    C. Jones, “Low-overhead constructions for the fault-tolerant Toffoli gate,” Physical Review A , vol. 87, no. 2, p. 022328, Feb. 2013, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.87.022328

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.87.022328 2013

  77. [77]

    Optimal Toffoli-Depth Quantum Adder,

    S. Wang, A. Mondal, and A. Chattopadhyay, “Optimal Toffoli-Depth Quantum Adder,” ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing , vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1–16, Sep. 2025, doi:10.1145/3743691

    work page doi:10.1145/3743691 2025

  78. [78]

    Conditional-Sum Addition Logic,

    J. Sklansky, “Conditional-Sum Addition Logic,” IEEE Transactions on Electronic Computers , vol. EC-9, no. 2, pp. 226–231, Jun. 1960, doi:10.1109/TEC.1960.5219822

    work page doi:10.1109/tec.1960.5219822 1960

  79. [79]

    Optimal ancilla-free Clifford+T approxi- mation of z-rotations,

    N. J. Ross and P . Selinger, “Optimal ancilla-free Clifford+T approxi- mation of z-rotations,” Quantum Information and Computation , vol. 16, no. 11&12, pp. 901–953, Sep. 2016, doi:10.26421/QIC16.11-12-1

    work page doi:10.26421/qic16.11-12-1 2016

  80. [80]

    The Solovay-Kitaev algorithm,

    C. M. Dawson and M. A. Nielsen, “The Solovay-Kitaev algorithm,” Quantum Info. Comput. , vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 81–95, Jan. 2006

    2006

Showing first 80 references.