Compilation Techniques for Spin Qubits in a Shuttling Bus Architecture

Andrii Semenov; Carmen G. Almud\'ever; Eduard Alarc\'on; Elena Blokhina; Niall Murphy; Pau Escofet; Sergi Abadal

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Compilation Techniques for Spin Qubits in a Shuttling Bus Architecture

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a lookahead return-placement heuristic, Swap Return, gives the best speed-versus-error balance for compiling onto a conveyor-belt spin-qubit shuttling bus.

desk verdict Swap Return is a genuinely sensible lookahead heuristic for shuttling-based spin qubits, but the 'most robust' claim goes beyond the evidence because the entire ranking rests on a single error model with fixed parameters. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06263 v1 pith:3E2PEK6F submitted 2025-02-10 quant-ph

Pau Escofet , Andrii Semenov , Niall Murphy , Elena Blokhina , Sergi Abadal , Eduard Alarcón , Carmen G. Almudéver This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords quantumcircuitmappingspinqubitsshuttlingbusconveyorbeltphaseerrorinitialqubitplacementcompilationsiliconcomputing

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Quantum circuits for silicon spin qubits need shuttling: electrons are moved along a one-dimensional bus to bring qubits together for two-qubit gates, and every shuttling step adds a phase error that depends on distance and speed. This paper designs and compares five compilation strategies for such a conveyor-belt architecture, evaluating them on benchmark quantum algorithm circuits. Its main claim is that Swap Return, a strategy that decides where to park each qubit after a gate by looking ahead to that qubit's next interaction, yields the best balance between minimizing accumulated phase error and keeping total execution time low. It also claims that a spectral-layout initial placement, derived from the circuit's interaction graph, clearly outperforms random placement on shallow circuits such as graph-state preparation. The practical upshot is that routing-aware compilation can meaningfully reduce shuttling overhead in scalable spin-qubit processors.

What carries the argument

Two pieces carry the argument. First, the shuttling phase-error model (Eq. (1)), which estimates the phase error $\delta_C$ of a qubit shuttled with velocity $v$ over distance $L_s$; it is the scoring function behind all comparisons. Second, the Swap Return heuristic, which makes the return movement after each gate lookahead-aware: for two qubits returning from manipulation zone $O_k$, it tests the two possible assignments and picks the one that minimizes the distance to each qubit's next interaction partner. This converts an otherwise wasted return trip into a step that positions qubits for future gates.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of shuttling-induced phase error on a physical silicon conveyor-belt device, across the distances and velocities used in the paper, could refute the ranking if, with measured errors substituted for Eq. (1), Swap Return no longer dominates on both error and time.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the authors' terms, the central discovery is that the qubit-mapping problem for a conveyor-belt shuttling bus has a simple, effective answer: after executing a two-qubit gate, choose the qubits' parking spots by comparing the distances from each candidate slot to that qubit's next interaction partner, rather than returning qubits to their original or nearest positions. In simulations spanning seven benchmark circuits on a 16-qubit architecture, this Swap Return strategy produced the best overall balance, with phase errors substantially below the fixed-velocity baselines and execution times close to the fastest strategy. The paper further shows that the initial placement can be improved by treating it as a Minimum Linear Arrangement problem solved with a spectral method, and that the benefit is most pronounced for short-depth circuits and for dynamic mapping strategies.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that Eq. (1) and the parameter values in Table I faithfully describe how much phase error a real conveyor-belt shuttle adds to a spin qubit; if that model is wrong, the ordering of the five mapping strategies could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Fixed shuttling at 10 m/s is not the best operating point: allowing velocity to be tuned, or planning return paths with future gates in mind, reduces phase error below the fixed-velocity baseline.
A compiler that slices a circuit into parallel gate groups and shuttles qubits together can cut execution time by nearly a factor of three relative to a purely sequential mapping.
Informed initial placement helps most when circuits are short; for deep circuits the dynamic mapping strategies dominate and the starting layout matters less.
The same lookahead principle can be applied to the return trip of every two-qubit gate, not just to initial routing, giving a concrete compilation policy for one-dimensional qubit arrays.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the Swap Return rule should transfer to other moving-qubit platforms, such as trapped-ion shuttling or photonic delay-based buses, whenever per-move error grows with distance, because the rule only needs the positions of the next interaction partners.
Editorial inference: combining Swap Return with Tunable Velocity, using lookahead placement and then optimizing speed from the maximal remaining distance, is a plausible next step the paper does not simulate, and it could push both metrics further.
Editorial inference: the error model's structure predicts an optimal shuttling speed below the 10 m/s default for 16-qubit circuits; a device experiment sweeping velocity and measuring dephasing would test this prediction directly.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

I'll cut to the chase. The Swap Return heuristic is the real contribution here: after a two-qubit gate, you assign qubits to free physical spots based on which of them has the nearer next interaction. That's a clean, natural extension of lookahead routing, and it's new in the spin-qubit shuttling literature. The paper also does something useful by applying a known spectral initial placement to this architecture and evaluating five mapping strategies on MQT Bench circuits with a published error model. The prose descriptions are clear enough that I could re-implement the main ideas.

Now the soft spots. The stress-test note is right. Eq. (1) is a sum of terms with different distance dependencies: one linear in Ls, one independent of Ls, one exponential in Ls and 1/v. For the few-micron shuttle distances in a 16-qubit chip, the distance-independent term (10^-4/v) could plausibly dominate. If it does, Swap Return's distance-minimizing return policy buys little error advantage, and its ranking against Minimum Return or Tunable Velocity could shift. The paper never varies any of these parameters, so 'most robust' is really 'most robust for the one parameter set in Table I.' That's a genuine gap, and it's the main reason I'd hold back on accepting the headline claim as stated.

There are other, smaller issues. No pseudocode is given; details like slice formation and tie-breaking in Minimum Return are left implicit. No code or data is shipped, so the numbers are not independently reproducible. The random placement baseline is averaged over only 10 runs, and the paper's own results show Tunable Velocity beating Swap Return on some benchmarks, which makes 'most robust' sound a bit overwrought even without the sensitivity problem.

The citation pattern looks fine. The Langrock error model is the right external source, and the self-citations are relevant to the multi-core mapping discussion, not just padding.

Who should read this? People working on compilation for spin-qubit architectures, especially anything with shuttling. It's a legitimate algorithmic study, and the Swap Return idea is worth knowing. But I wouldn't take the ranking as definitive.

My recommendation: send it to peer review, but make clear that a serious referee should ask for pseudocode, code/data release, and a sensitivity analysis over the error model parameters. With those additions, this could be a solid accepted paper. As is, it's a promising preprint with an under-supported central claim.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies compilation of quantum circuits onto a one-dimensional silicon-spin-qubit architecture that uses conveyor-belt shuttling between storage positions and manipulation zones. It proposes five mapping strategies -- Baseline, Parallel, Minimum Return, Tunable Velocity, and Swap Return -- with the aim of reducing both shuttling-induced phase error, modeled by Eq. (1) from Langrock et al., and total circuit execution time. The strategies are evaluated on MQT Bench circuits for architectures of 10-30 qubits, and the paper also proposes a spectral-layout-based initial placement. The central claim is that Swap Return is the most robust strategy, offering the best balance between error minimization and execution time, and that spectral initial placement improves performance, particularly for short-depth circuits.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a practically relevant heuristic contribution: a simple lookahead rule for choosing where to return shuttled qubits can reduce phase error without sacrificing speed in conveyor-belt spin-qubit architectures. The paper has several strengths: the error model is taken from a published external source, the benchmark suite comes from MQT Bench, five different mapping strategies are compared, and the architectural exposition is clear. The main limitation is that the "most robust" claim is a ranking claim established entirely through simulation with fixed error-model parameters and no sensitivity analysis, so the contribution is plausible but not yet firmly supported. The absence of pseudocode and of a precise definition of the aggregated error metric also limits reproducibility.

major comments (4)

[§IV, Eq. (1)] The abstract and conclusions claim that Swap Return is "most robust" and offers the best balance between phase error and execution time. This ranking is loaded entirely on Eq. (1) with the fixed parameters of Table I, but the paper provides no sensitivity analysis. Eq. (1) contains terms that are linear in Ls, independent of Ls, linear in 1/v, and exponential in Ls/v; at the few-micrometer distances of a 16-qubit device, the relative weights of these terms determine whether reducing shuttle distance actually lowers phase error. If distance-independent terms dominate in a real device, Swap Return's distance-reduction heuristic would lose most of its error benefit and the ranking could change; if distance-dependent terms are stronger, the advantage could be exaggerated. Since the optimization and evaluation use the same external model, this is not a circularity problem, but the "robust" claim needs a parameter sweep over the model constants of Table I, or validation against shuttling data, before it can be accepted as stated.
[§III.A–III.E] The five mapping strategies are described only in prose, with no pseudocode and several missing definitions. It is not specified exactly how slices are formed for the Parallel strategy, how conflicts are resolved when two gates in a slice would require the same manipulation zone or the same qubit, how ties are broken in Minimum Return when multiple free physical qubits are at equal distance, or what objective and velocity bounds are used in Tunable Velocity's derivative-based minimization. The experimental results in Section IV therefore cannot be independently reproduced, and because the algorithms are the main contribution, this is a load-bearing gap rather than a presentation issue.
[§III.F] The description of the spectral initial placement contains an inconsistency. For the Laplacian L = D - A, spectral graph layout uses eigenvectors associated with the smallest non-zero eigenvalues -- the Fiedler vector is the usual basis for a 1D arrangement -- yet the text says the method calculates the largest eigenvalues and corresponding eigenvectors and then uses the first eigenvalue of the Laplacian matrix. If the implementation actually used the largest eigenvectors, this is not the standard spectral layout and needs justification; if it used the Fiedler vector, the text is incorrect. Since the initial-placement result is one of the paper's two main claims, the exact eigenvector used should be stated unambiguously.
[§IV.A, Fig. 2] The error metric used to report the results is never defined. Eq. (1) gives a phase error per shuttling operation; the reported phase error introduced to the qubits could be the sum of all shuttling errors, the maximum error accumulated on any qubit, or a circuit-level fidelity proxy, and the choice affects how Swap Return and Tunable Velocity compare. Figure 2 also appears to show no error bars despite the text saying mean and standard deviation are reported, and no confidence intervals are given for the stated speedup factors such as 2.92x, 1.28x, and 1.32x. A precise definition of the aggregated error and a statement of statistical variation across circuits and random initial placements are needed before the ranking claims can be assessed.

minor comments (5)

[Fig. 3] The legend contains the typo "T unable Velocity" instead of "Tunable Velocity".
[Fig. 3] The label "Deustch-Jozsa" should be "Deutsch-Jozsa".
[Fig. 2 caption] The caption reads "Performance of the proposed mapping strategies several benchmarks compiled into a 16 qubits architecture"; a preposition such as "on" is missing, and "16 qubits" should be "16-qubit".
[§IV] The conclusion that Swap Return is most robust should be qualified as robust within the evaluated error model and benchmark set; as written, the conclusion overstates the generality of the simulation result.
[§II.B] Eq. (1) uses a "~" symbol and an unusual layout that makes the terms hard to parse; adding an explicit equality or defining each term separately would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central strategy ranking is produced by an external error model and external benchmarks.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity. The phase-error objective is the external Langrock et al. model (Eq. 1, Ref. [24]), and all five mapping strategies are evaluated against that same model, with benchmarks taken from MQT Bench. Tunable Velocity explicitly minimizes the same error model it is scored against, but this is the stated optimization objective rather than a hidden fit, and the paper's central claim about Swap Return's balance is not guaranteed by construction, since Swap Return does not win on every benchmark and the reported ranking is an empirical simulation outcome. The self-citations present ([12], [14], [27], [31]) are contextual, appearing for prior mapping work, the native gate set, and interaction-graph characterization, and none is load-bearing for the Swap Return result. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no result reduces to its own input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not introduce new physical entities. It relies on a published error model and a set of architecture parameters chosen by the authors. The central comparison of mapping strategies is conditional on these modeling choices, so the sensitivity of the ranking to these parameters is a key unexamined dependence.

free parameters (5)

distance_qubit_qubit = 2 µm
Chosen by the authors for the simulated architecture; affects all shuttling distances and therefore phase errors.
distance_qubit_gate = 1 µm
Chosen by the authors; affects the distance from storage to manipulation zone.
single_qubit_gate_time = 20 ns
Chosen by the authors; contributes to total execution time.
two_qubit_gate_time = 45 ns
Chosen by the authors; contributes to total execution time.
error_model_parameters = T2* = 20 µs, l_delta_omega^c = 100 nm, L_dot = 20 nm, E_VS,0 = 100 µeV, a_x = 0.05 π/nm, d_bar = 30 nm
Taken from Langrock et al. [24], not fitted here, but the quantitative results and the ranking of strategies depend on these values. No sensitivity analysis is provided.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The error model of Langrock et al. (Eq. 1) accurately predicts phase errors in the conveyor-belt shuttling architecture.
Introduced in Section II.B and used to compute all phase errors in Section IV. If this model is inaccurate, the strategy ranking could change.
domain assumption Shuttling operations can be performed in parallel without crosstalk or additional errors when they occur in different manipulation zones.
Assumed in the Parallel, Minimum Return, Tunable Velocity, and Swap Return strategies. Real hardware may have interference between simultaneous shuttling operations.
domain assumption The basis gate set is (rx, rz, h, cz) and all circuits are decomposed into these gates before mapping.
Stated in Section III. The compilation results depend on this decomposition, which is standard but not universal.
domain assumption Benchmark circuits from MQT Bench are representative of typical quantum workloads for this architecture.
The evaluation uses seven MQT Bench algorithms. The conclusions about 'most robust' may not generalize to other circuit classes or sizes beyond 30 qubits.
domain assumption The first eigenvector of the interaction graph's Laplacian provides a good approximate solution to the Minimum Linear Arrangement problem for initial placement.
The spectral layout method is a known heuristic, but its quality for this specific problem is not proven. The paper assumes it works well enough to improve performance.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Compilation Techniques for Spin Qubits in a Shuttling Bus Architecture." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3E2PEK6F

@misc{pith2026250206263,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Compilation Techniques for Spin Qubits in a Shuttling Bus Architecture},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3E2PEK6F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06263}
}

read the original abstract

In this work, we explore and propose several quantum circuit mapping strategies to optimize qubit shuttling in scalable quantum computing architectures based on silicon spin qubits. Our goal is to minimize phase errors introduced during shuttling operations while reducing the overall execution time of quantum circuits. We propose and evaluate five mapping algorithms using benchmarks from quantum algorithms. The Swap Return strategy emerged as the most robust solution, offering a superior balance between execution time and error minimization by considering future qubit interactions. Additionally, we assess the importance of initial qubit placement, demonstrating that an informed placement strategy can significantly enhance the performance of dynamic mapping approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06263 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Performance of the proposed mapping strategies several benchmarks compiled into a 16 qubits architecture. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Initial placement impact for an increasing number of qubits. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[1]

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

2010
[2]

Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and dis- crete logarithms on a quantum computer,

P. W. Shor, “Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and dis- crete logarithms on a quantum computer,” SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1484–1509, 1997

work page 1997
[3]

Drug design on quantum computers,

R. Santagati, A. Aspuru-Guzik, R. Babbush, M. Degroote, L. Gonz ´alez, E. Kyoseva, N. Moll, M. Oppel, R. M. Parrish, N. C. Rubin, M. Streif, C. S. Tautermann, H. Weiss, N. Wiebe, and C. Utschig-Utschig, “Drug design on quantum computers,” Nature Physics, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 549– 557, Apr 2024

work page 2024
[4]

Coherent control of macroscopic quantum states in a single-cooper-pair box,

Y . Nakamura, Y . A. Pashkin, and J. S. Tsai, “Coherent control of macroscopic quantum states in a single-cooper-pair box,” Nature, vol. 398, no. 6730, pp. 786–788, apr 1999

work page 1999
[5]

Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits,

P. Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. C. Ralph, J. P. Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, “Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits,” Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 79, pp. 135–174, Jan 2007

work page 2007
[6]

Quantum information processing using quantum dot spins and cavity qed,

A. Imamoglu, D. D. Awschalom, G. Burkard, D. P. DiVincenzo, D. Loss, M. S. Sherwin, and A. Small, “Quantum information processing using quantum dot spins and cavity qed,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 83, pp. 4204– 4207, Nov 1999

work page 1999
[7]

Quantum computations with cold trapped ions,

I. Cirac and P. Zoller, “Quantum computations with cold trapped ions,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 74, pp. 4091–4094, May 1995

work page 1995
[8]

Few electron double quantum dot in an isotopically purified 28si quantum well,

A. Wild, J. Kierig, J. Sailer, J. W. Ager, E. Haller, G. Abstreiter, S. Ludwig, and D. Bougeard, “Few electron double quantum dot in an isotopically purified 28si quantum well,” Applied Physics Letters , vol. 100, no. 14, 2012

work page 2012

Show all 33 references

[9]

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

G. Li, Y . Ding, and Y . Xie, “Tackling the qubit mapping problem for nisq-era quantum devices,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems , ser. ASPLOS ’19. New York, NY , USA: Associa...

2019
[10]

Shuttling for scalable trapped-ion quantum computers,

D. Schoenberger, S. Hillmich, M. Brandl, and R. Wille, “Shuttling for scalable trapped-ion quantum computers,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.14065

2024 arXiv
[11]

Quantum error correction in crossbar architectures,

J. Helsen, M. Steudtner, M. Veldhorst, and S. Wehner, “Quantum error correction in crossbar architectures,” Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 3, no. 3, p. 035005, May 2018

2018
[12]

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

2025
[13]

Compilation and scaling strategies for a silicon quantum processor with sparse two-dimensional connectivity,

O. Crawford, J. R. Cruise, N. Mertig, and M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, “Compilation and scaling strategies for a silicon quantum processor with sparse two-dimensional connectivity,” npj Quantum Information , vol. 9, no. 1, p. 13, Feb 2023

2023
[14]

Spinq: Compilation strategies for scalable spin-qubit architectures,

N. Paraskevopoulos, F. Sebastiano, C. G. Almudever, and S. Feld, “Spinq: Compilation strategies for scalable spin-qubit architectures,” ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing , vol. 5, no. 1, Dec. 2023

2023
[15]

Conveyor-mode single-electron shuttling in si/sige for a scalable quantum computing architecture,

I. Seidler, T. Struck, R. Xue, N. Focke, S. Trellenkamp, H. Bluhm, and L. R. Schreiber, “Conveyor-mode single-electron shuttling in si/sige for a scalable quantum computing architecture,” npj Quantum Information , vol. 8, no. 1, p. 100, Aug 2022

2022
[16]

A quantum-dot spin qubit with coherence limited by charge noise and fidelity higher than 99.9%,

J. Yoneda, K. Takeda, T. Otsuka, T. Nakajima, M. R. Delbecq, G. Alli- son, T. Honda, T. Kodera, S. Oda, Y . Hoshi et al., “A quantum-dot spin qubit with coherence limited by charge noise and fidelity higher than 99.9%,” Nature nanotechnology, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 102–106, 2018

2018
[17]

Quantum logic with spin qubits crossing the surface code threshold,

X. Xue, M. Russ, N. Samkharadze, B. Undseth, A. Sammak, G. Scap- pucci, and L. M. Vandersypen, “Quantum logic with spin qubits crossing the surface code threshold,” Nature, vol. 601, no. 7893, pp. 343–347, 2022

2022
[18]

Silicon quantum electronics,

F. A. Zwanenburg, A. S. Dzurak, A. Morello, M. Y . Simmons, L. C. Hollenberg, G. Klimeck, S. Rogge, S. N. Coppersmith, and M. A. Eriksson, “Silicon quantum electronics,” Reviews of modern physics , vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 961–1019, 2013

2013
[19]

Simulation of micro-magnet stray-field dynamics for spin qubit manipulation,

R. Neumann and L. Schreiber, “Simulation of micro-magnet stray-field dynamics for spin qubit manipulation,” Journal of Applied Physics , vol. 117, no. 19, 2015

2015
[20]

Shuttling a single charge across a one-dimensional array of silicon quantum dots,

A. R. Mills, D. M. Zajac, M. J. Gullans, F. J. Schupp, T. M. Hazard, and J. R. Petta, “Shuttling a single charge across a one-dimensional array of silicon quantum dots,” Nature Communications, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 1063, Mar 2019

2019
[21]

Distant spin entanglement via fast and coherent electron shuttling,

B. Jadot, P.-A. Mortemousque, E. Chanrion, V . Thiney, A. Ludwig, A. D. Wieck, M. Urdampilleta, C. B ¨auerle, and T. Meunier, “Distant spin entanglement via fast and coherent electron shuttling,” Nature Nanotechnology, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 570–575, 2021

2021
[22]

Fault-tolerant architecture for quantum computation using electrically controlled semiconductor spins,

J. Taylor, H.-A. Engel, W. D ¨ur, A. Yacoby, C. Marcus, P. Zoller, and M. Lukin, “Fault-tolerant architecture for quantum computation using electrically controlled semiconductor spins,” Nature Physics , vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 177–183, 2005

2005
[23]

Two- dimensional architectures for donor-based quantum computing,

L. Hollenberg, A. Greentree, A. Fowler, and C. Wellard, “Two- dimensional architectures for donor-based quantum computing,” Physi- cal Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics , vol. 74, no. 4, p. 045311, 2006

2006
[24]

Blueprint of a scalable spin qubit shuttle device for coherent mid-range qubit transfer in disordered si/sige/sio 2,

V . Langrock, J. A. Krzywda, N. Focke, I. Seidler, L. R. Schreiber, and Ł. Cywi ´nski, “Blueprint of a scalable spin qubit shuttle device for coherent mid-range qubit transfer in disordered si/sige/sio 2,” PRX Quantum, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 020305, 2023

2023
[25]

Dephasing time of gaas electron-spin qubits coupled to a nuclear bath exceeding 200 µs,

H. Bluhm, S. Foletti, I. Neder, M. Rudner, D. Mahalu, V . Umansky, and A. Yacoby, “Dephasing time of gaas electron-spin qubits coupled to a nuclear bath exceeding 200 µs,” Nature Physics, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 109–113, 2011

2011
[26]

Universal logic with encoded spin qubits in silicon,

A. J. Weinstein, M. D. Reed, A. M. Jones, R. W. Andrews, D. Barnes, J. Z. Blumoff, L. E. Euliss, K. Eng, B. H. Fong, S. D. Ha, D. R. Hulbert, C. A. C. Jackson, M. Jura, T. E. Keating, J. Kerckhoff, A. A. Kiselev, J. Matten, G. Sabbir, A. Smith, J. Wright, M. T. Rakher, T. D. L...

2023
[27]

Spin qubit performance at the error correction threshold: Advancing quantum information processing above 700 mk,

S. Amitonov, A. Apr `a, M. Asker, R. Bals, B. Barry, I. Bashir, E. Blokhina, P. Giounanlis, M. Harkin, P. Hanos-Puskai, I. Kriekouki, D. Leipold, M. Moras, N. Murphy, N. Petropoulos, C. Power, A. Sammak, N. Samkharadze, A. Semenov, A. Sokolov, D. Redmond, C. Rohrbacher, and X....

2025
[28]

Qubit allocation,

M. Y . Siraichi, V . F. d. Santos, C. Collange, and F. M. Q. Pereira, “Qubit allocation,” in Proceedings of the 2018 International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization , ser. CGO ’18. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2018, p. 113–125

2018
[29]

Optimal assignments of numbers to vertices,

L. H. Harper, “Optimal assignments of numbers to vertices,” Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics , vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 131–135, 1964

1964
[30]

Michael r. πgarey and david s. johnson. computers and intractability. a guide to the theory of np-completeness. wh freeman and company, san francisco1979, x+ 338 pp

H. R. Lewis, “Michael r. πgarey and david s. johnson. computers and intractability. a guide to the theory of np-completeness. wh freeman and company, san francisco1979, x+ 338 pp.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 498–500, 1983

1983
[31]

Interaction graph-based characterization of quantum benchmarks for improving quantum circuit mapping techniques,

M. Bandic, C. G. Almudever, and S. Feld, “Interaction graph-based characterization of quantum benchmarks for improving quantum circuit mapping techniques,” Quantum Machine Intelligence, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 40, Oct 2023

2023
[32]

Drawing graphs by eigenvectors: theory and practice,

Y . Koren, “Drawing graphs by eigenvectors: theory and practice,” Computers & Mathematics with Applications , vol. 49, no. 11, pp. 1867– 1888, 2005

2005
[33]

MQT Bench: Bench- marking software and design automation tools for quantum computing,

N. Quetschlich, L. Burgholzer, and R. Wille, “MQT Bench: Bench- marking software and design automation tools for quantum computing,” Quantum, 2023

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

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

2010

[2] [2]

Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and dis- crete logarithms on a quantum computer,

P. W. Shor, “Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and dis- crete logarithms on a quantum computer,” SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1484–1509, 1997

work page 1997

[3] [3]

Drug design on quantum computers,

R. Santagati, A. Aspuru-Guzik, R. Babbush, M. Degroote, L. Gonz ´alez, E. Kyoseva, N. Moll, M. Oppel, R. M. Parrish, N. C. Rubin, M. Streif, C. S. Tautermann, H. Weiss, N. Wiebe, and C. Utschig-Utschig, “Drug design on quantum computers,” Nature Physics, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 549– 557, Apr 2024

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Coherent control of macroscopic quantum states in a single-cooper-pair box,

Y . Nakamura, Y . A. Pashkin, and J. S. Tsai, “Coherent control of macroscopic quantum states in a single-cooper-pair box,” Nature, vol. 398, no. 6730, pp. 786–788, apr 1999

work page 1999

[5] [5]

Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits,

P. Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. C. Ralph, J. P. Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, “Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits,” Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 79, pp. 135–174, Jan 2007

work page 2007

[6] [6]

Quantum information processing using quantum dot spins and cavity qed,

A. Imamoglu, D. D. Awschalom, G. Burkard, D. P. DiVincenzo, D. Loss, M. S. Sherwin, and A. Small, “Quantum information processing using quantum dot spins and cavity qed,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 83, pp. 4204– 4207, Nov 1999

work page 1999

[7] [7]

Quantum computations with cold trapped ions,

I. Cirac and P. Zoller, “Quantum computations with cold trapped ions,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 74, pp. 4091–4094, May 1995

work page 1995

[8] [8]

Few electron double quantum dot in an isotopically purified 28si quantum well,

A. Wild, J. Kierig, J. Sailer, J. W. Ager, E. Haller, G. Abstreiter, S. Ludwig, and D. Bougeard, “Few electron double quantum dot in an isotopically purified 28si quantum well,” Applied Physics Letters , vol. 100, no. 14, 2012

work page 2012