Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Resource-Efficient Compilation of Distributed Quantum Circuits for Solving Large-Scale Wireless Communication Network Problems

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A hybrid spectral-clustering/QAOA routing method for wireless sensor networks reports an 83.16% energy reduction in a 109-node simulation, beating the 68.32% achieved by a greedy search baseline.

desk verdict Routine QAOA-for-WSN paper whose headline energy savings are invalidated by an infeasible QUBO encoding and inconsistent arithmetic. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10242 v1 pith:UCFKCFME submitted 2025-01-17 quant-ph cs.DC

Kuan-Cheng Chen , Felix Burt , Shang Yu , Chen-Yu Liu , Min-Hsiu Hsieh , Kin K. Leung This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.DC
keywords wirelesssensornetworksQAOAspectralclusteringQUBOdistributedquantumcomputingroutingoptimizationenergyefficiencyhybridclassical-quantumalgorithms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that the routing problem in large wireless sensor networks can be made tractable for near-term quantum hardware by splitting the network with spectral clustering and solving each cluster's routing subproblem with the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA). The routing task is encoded as a Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) problem whose binary variables select directed edges, with penalty terms for flow conservation and per-node energy limits. In a simulated 109-node network with 100 sensors, 8 cluster heads, and one base station, the authors report total energy consumption of 15,982.9 units after the hybrid QAOA approach, an 83.16% reduction from the initial 94,593.5 units, compared with 29,969.7 units (68.32% reduction) for a greedy search in subgroups. The significance would be that a practical hybrid classical-quantum workflow, not a full-scale fault-tolerant machine, could give large energy savings for network optimization on current hardware.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the QUBO formulation in Eq. (10) combined with a spectral-clustering partition. Binary variables $x_{ij}$ mark whether directed edge $(i,j)$ is used; the objective sums transmission costs $c_{ij} = \varepsilon d_{ij}^2$ and adds squared penalties for flow conservation (out-flow minus in-flow equals $b_i$) and for exceeding each node's initial energy $E_i$. Spectral clustering partitions the network into $k$ subgraphs ($k$ equal to the number of cluster heads), keeping each subproblem small enough for a QAOA circuit with alternating problem and mixing Hamiltonians. A resource-efficient compilation strategy, including a heavy-hexagonal qubit layout and modular distributed QPUs, is what makes the per-subgraph QAOA execution plausible on current hardware.

What would settle it

Inspect the reported optimized network: if any sensor node's outgoing-edge costs exceed its initial energy $E_i = 100$, or if any node's out-flow minus in-flow differs from $b_i$, then the penalty encoding failed and the claimed energy savings does not describe a feasible routing. Alternatively, solve the same small subgraphs ($n_s \leq 25$) by exhaustive search and check whether the QAOA-selected edge set remains cheaper than the greedy baseline; if the greedy solution is cheaper, the central comparison fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a resource-efficient, distributed QAOA workflow can outperform a classical greedy search on the same wireless sensor network routing problem. The authors formulate routing over each spectral cluster as a QUBO, constrain subgraphs to at most 25 binary variables, simulate the QAOA circuit classically, and then stitch cluster-level routes together with breadth-first search so the whole network remains connected. On their 109-node test network the quantum-enhanced optimization yields total energy consumption of 15,982.9 units and an 83.16% energy reduction, exceeding the greedy search's 68.32% reduction. The paper presents this as evidence that partitioning plus QAOA is a scalable route to large network-optimization problems on near-term devices, while acknowledging that parameter selection and current hardware quality still limit solution optimality.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the squared penalty terms in the encoded optimization problem (Eq. 10) force the solution to respect both flow conservation and each node's energy limit, and that a subgraph whose sink lies outside it still produces routes that can be stitched into a valid whole-network routing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Large WSN routing problems can be attacked without a fault-tolerant quantum computer by capping each QAOA subgraph at a hardware-tolerable size and using classical post-processing for inter-cluster connectivity.
  • The tested 109-node instance is a proof of concept: the hybrid method reports 15,982.9 units of total energy versus 29,969.7 for greedy search, a difference the paper attributes to quantum-enhanced optimization.
  • The complexity analysis places spectral clustering at $O(N^3)$ and QAOA circuit depth at $O(p \times \log(n_s))$, so the practical bottleneck can shift between classical partitioning and quantum execution as the network grows.
  • Because each subgraph is solved independently and then stitched with breadth-first search, the same QUBO formulation works for a single QPU, a clustered QPU, or a modular multi-QPU setup, which is what makes the approach resource-efficient.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A test the paper does not run: execute the same per-subgraph QUBO on real heavy-hexagonal hardware with error mitigation, since the reported numbers come from classical simulation of the QAOA circuit.
  • The reported 83.16% figure is a comparison against the greedy-search baseline; solving the same small subgraphs exactly would show how close the QAOA solution sits to the true QUBO optimum.
  • If the penalty encoding and stitching step are sound, the same recipe should transfer to other graph-constrained combinatorial problems, where subgraphs small enough for QAOA can be carved out and solved independently.
  • The flow-conservation condition assumes the base station can absorb the total sensor flow even when it lies outside a cluster; if that assumption fails, extra stitching edges are needed and the savings could shift.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

  1. Claim #1: The central discovery is that a resource-efficient, distributed QAOA workflow can outperform a classical greedy search on the same wireless sensor network routing problem. The authors formulate routing over each spectral cluster as a QUBO, constrain subgraphs to at most 25 binary variables, simulate the QAOA circuit classically, and then stitch cluster-level routes together with breadth-first sear

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.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a hybrid classical-quantum framework for wireless sensor network (WSN) routing. Spectral clustering partitions the network into subgraphs; each subgraph's routing problem is formulated as a QUBO and solved with QAOA, followed by classical postprocessing (base-station/CH connection and BFS repair) to restore connectivity. The paper reports a simulation with 109 nodes and 5 clusters in which the hybrid QAOA approach yields 83.16% energy reduction versus 68.32% for an underspecified classical greedy search, and discusses resource-efficient compilation strategies for distributed QPUs.

Significance. If the modeling and numerical claims were valid, the paper would provide an interesting near-term application of QAOA to network routing with a concrete scalability strategy, and the compilation discussion addresses a real hardware constraint. The framework is a standard composition of spectral clustering, QUBO, and QAOA, and it is not circular: the objective and constraints are defined independently of the reported outcome. However, the core optimization model in Eq. (10) does not enforce the stated inequality constraint and is infeasible for most subgraphs in the reported experiment, and the central energy-saving number is arithmetically inconsistent. The paper also provides no code, data, or detailed baseline specification, so the main performance claim is not reproducible. The manuscript is therefore not publishable in its current form.

major comments (4)
  1. [II-D, Eq. (10)] The quadratic penalty λ_energy Σ_i (Σ_j c_ij x_ij − E_i)^2 does not enforce the inequality constraint in Eq. (5). A squared penalty is minimized when Σ_j c_ij x_ij = E_i, so solutions using less energy than the budget are penalized rather than accepted; the term actively pushes each node toward its full energy budget and does not express Σ_j c_ij x_ij ≤ E_i. Since the validity of the optimized route is central to the energy-savings claim, the QUBO must be reformulated (for example with slack variables or a one-sided penalty) or the energy constraint must be shown to be nonbinding.
  2. [II-D, Eq. (4); III, 5-cluster network] Summing the flow-conservation constraints over all nodes of a subgraph G_s gives Σ_i (Σ_j x_ij − Σ_j x_ji) = Σ_i b_i. For any subgraph that does not contain the base station, Σ_i b_i equals the number of sensor nodes in that subgraph (positive), while the left-hand side is zero when the QUBO is restricted to internal edges E_s as defined. In the reported 5-cluster network, at least four subgraphs have no sink, so no binary assignment can satisfy all node-wise constraints; the QAOA minimizers for those subgraphs are therefore not valid routes of the stated flow-conservation problem. This is a load-bearing infeasibility in the core model.
  3. [III] The reported quantum saving does not follow from the paper's own numbers. C_initial − C_total,quantum = 94,593.5 − 15,982.9 = 78,610.6, not 78,901.6, and the corresponding reduction is 83.10%, not 83.16%. The percentage is computed from an inconsistent ΔC_quantum value; the paper should report one consistent set of numbers throughout Section III.
  4. [III] The classical baseline is described only as “a greedy search in subgroups,” with no algorithm specification, pseudocode, penalty or parameter values, or per-subgraph results. Since the paper's central claim is that hybrid QAOA beats classical methods, the comparison needs a clearly defined baseline, ideally with multiple random trials and dispersion measures; without this, the 68.32% versus 83.16% comparison is not reproducible.
minor comments (6)
  1. [II-D] The definition of b_i for the base station, “− Σ_{i∈S} b_i”, reuses the summation index i and is ambiguous; use a separate index, e.g., b_BS = −Σ_{s∈S} 1.
  2. [II-D] Equation (3) refers to FlowConstraints(x) and EnergyConstraints(x) before their explicit forms are given in Eq. (10); reorder or label the equations for readability.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption contains a duplicated period: “Fig. 2. . Compilation strategies.”
  4. [III / Fig. 4] The text says Figure 4 illustrates the optimized topology for both methods, but the caption only mentions the hybrid QAOA approach; reconcile the caption or include the classical routing result.
  5. [III] No values are reported for λ_flow, λ_energy, the number of QAOA layers p, or the subgraph limit n_max, so the simulation cannot be reproduced from the text.
  6. [II-F, III] The terms “subgroups” and “subgraphs” are used interchangeably; choose one term throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the QUBO/QAOA pipeline is a standard derivation with no fitted target, though the evaluation baseline is internal.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain—network model, spectral clustering, QUBO construction, QAOA simulation, and energy accounting—does not reduce to its own inputs by construction. The QUBO in Eq. (10) is obtained by translating the stated flow-conservation constraint Eq. (4) and energy bound Eq. (5) into penalty terms; the reported energy values are outputs of the optimization, not fitted parameters that are later renamed as predictions. The energy savings claim is therefore not circular in the sense defined here, even if the greedy baseline is internal and the QUBO encoding may be mathematically suspect (e.g., the squared penalty in Eq. (10) penalizes energy savings rather than enforcing the inequality in Eq. (5)). Those are correctness or benchmark concerns, not circularity. The paper does cite prior work by the same authors, including [13], [34], and [35], but those citations support the distributed compilation methodology and are not used to assert a uniqueness theorem that forces the paper's central result. No load-bearing step is justified solely by a self-citation, and no result is equivalent to its assumptions by definition. The internal arithmetic inconsistency (78,901.6 claimed vs. 78,610.6 computed from the paper's own numbers) is a numerical error, not evidence that the derivation is circular. Overall, no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows that the paper relies on several hand-chosen simulation constants (R, k, nmax, lambda values, p) and two modeling assumptions that are not justified: the squared-penalty encoding of an inequality constraint, and the independence of subgraph optima. These assumptions affect the central energy-saving numbers, so the empirical claim is not self-contained. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (7)
  • lambda_flow
    Penalty coefficient for flow conservation in Eqs. (3) and (10); value not specified, yet it determines whether infeasible routes are excluded.
  • lambda_energy
    Penalty coefficient for the energy constraint in Eqs. (3) and (10); value not specified, and the squared form does not actually enforce the inequality.
  • communication_range_R = 25 units
    Chosen in Section III; it defines edges and therefore the optimization graph; no sensitivity analysis is given.
  • cluster_count_k = 5
    Section III partitions into 5 clusters, while 8 CHs are defined; the selection rule for k is not justified.
  • qaoa_layers_p
    QAOA circuit depth parameter p in Eq. (6) is never specified in the experiments, although it controls solution quality.
  • subgraph_size_limit_nmax = 25 variables
    Set to keep classical simulation feasible; the effect on solution quality is not studied.
  • energy_coefficient_epsilon
    Coefficient in Eq. (2) is not given a numeric value, despite directly scaling all energy costs.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Free-space path loss model cij = epsilon * d_ij^2 (Eq. 2) from [23].
    Standard but not validated for this specific network scenario.
  • domain assumption Initial energies 100/200/infinity from [22].
    These values shape feasible routes and come from LEACH, not from this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The squared penalty (sum cij xij - Ei)^2 enforces the energy inequality in Eq. (5).
    Eq. (10) penalizes both overuse and underuse, so it does not encode the inequality constraint (5).
  • ad hoc to paper Subgraph-local flow conservation with sink term bi is valid even when the base station is not in the subgraph.
    Eq. (4) is applied per cluster without defining boundary flows to nodes outside the subgraph.
  • standard math Spectral clustering and QAOA are valid for the subproblems.
    Background methods from [9] and [24] are assumed correct.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Resource-Efficient Compilation of Distributed Quantum Circuits for Solving Large-Scale Wireless Communication Network Problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UCFKCFME

@misc{pith2026250110242,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Resource-Efficient Compilation of Distributed Quantum Circuits for Solving Large-Scale Wireless Communication Network Problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UCFKCFME}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10242}
}
read the original abstract

Optimizing routing in Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) is pivotal for minimizing energy consumption and extending network lifetime. This paper introduces a resourceefficient compilation method for distributed quantum circuits tailored to address large-scale WSN routing problems. Leveraging a hybrid classical-quantum framework, we employ spectral clustering for network partitioning and the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) for optimizing routing within manageable subgraphs. We formulate the routing problem as a Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) problem, providing comprehensive mathematical formulations and complexity analyses. Comparative evaluations against traditional classical algorithms demonstrate significant energy savings and enhanced scalability. Our approach underscores the potential of integrating quantum computing techniques into wireless communication networks, offering a scalable and efficient solution for future network optimization challenges

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10242 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Conceptual overview of the hybrid classical-quantum approach for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Compilation strategies for resource-efficient distributed QAOA. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Initial Wireless Sensor Network Topology with Clusters Highlighted. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Optimized Routing Paths by Hybrid QAOA Approach. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Robust Decentralized Quantum Kernel Learning for Noisy and Adversarial Environment

    quant-ph 2025-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A robust decentralized quantum kernel learning method that clips extreme neighbor updates and tolerates per-node depolarizing noise, evaluated in simulations.

  2. Quantum-Enhanced Parameter-Efficient Learning for Typhoon Trajectory Forecasting

    quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Quantum Parameter Adaptation reduces trainable parameters in an AM-ConvGRU typhoon model from 8.39M to about 0.2-0.3M while keeping forecast error competitive.

  3. Learning to Learn with Quantum Optimization via Quantum Neural Networks

    quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A QLSTM-based meta-optimizer trained on small graphs accelerates QAOA parameter tuning on larger Max-Cut and SK instances in simulation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Towards 6g wireless communication networks: Vision, enabling technologies, and new paradigm shifts,

    X. You, C.-X. Wang, J. Huang, X. Gao, Z. Zhang, M. Wang, Y . Huang, C. Zhang, Y . Jiang, J. Wang,et al., “Towards 6g wireless communication networks: Vision, enabling technologies, and new paradigm shifts,” Science China Information Sciences , vol. 64, pp. 1–74, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    6g wireless communications networks: A comprehensive survey,

    M. Alsabah, M. A. Naser, B. M. Mahmmod, S. H. Abdulhussain, M. R. Eissa, A. Al-Baidhani, N. K. Noordin, S. M. Sait, K. A. Al-Utaibi, and F. Hashim, “6g wireless communications networks: A comprehensive survey,” Ieee Access, vol. 9, pp. 148191–148243, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Compute-and data- intensive networks: The key to the metaverse,

    Y . Cai, J. Llorca, A. M. Tulino, and A. F. Molisch, “Compute-and data- intensive networks: The key to the metaverse,” in 2022 1st international conference on 6G networking (6GNet) , pp. 1–8, IEEE, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    A communications-oriented perspective on traffic management systems for smart cities: Challenges and innovative approaches,

    S. Djahel, R. Doolan, G.-M. Muntean, and J. Murphy, “A communications-oriented perspective on traffic management systems for smart cities: Challenges and innovative approaches,” IEEE Communica- tions Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 125–151, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    A survey on the ietf protocol suite for the internet of things: Standards, challenges, and opportunities,

    Z. Sheng, S. Yang, Y . Yu, A. V . Vasilakos, J. A. McCann, and K. K. Leung, “A survey on the ietf protocol suite for the internet of things: Standards, challenges, and opportunities,” IEEE wireless communica- tions, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 91–98, 2013

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    A survey of recent advances in optimization methods for wireless communications,

    Y .-F. Liu, T.-H. Chang, M. Hong, Z. Wu, A. M.-C. So, E. A. Jorswieck, and W. Yu, “A survey of recent advances in optimization methods for wireless communications,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Whale optimization algorithm with applications to resource allocation in wireless networks,

    Q.-V . Pham, S. Mirjalili, N. Kumar, M. Alazab, and W.-J. Hwang, “Whale optimization algorithm with applications to resource allocation in wireless networks,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology , vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 4285–4297, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Quantum op- timization using variational algorithms on near-term quantum devices,

    N. Moll, P. Barkoutsos, L. S. Bishop, J. M. Chow, A. Cross, D. J. Egger, S. Filipp, A. Fuhrer, J. M. Gambetta, M. Ganzhorn, et al., “Quantum op- timization using variational algorithms on near-term quantum devices,” Quantum Science and Technology , vol. 3, no. 3, p. 030503, 2018

    2018

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, “A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Solving vehicle routing problem using quantum approximate opti- mization algorithm,

    U. Azad, B. K. Behera, E. A. Ahmed, P. K. Panigrahi, and A. Farouk, “Solving vehicle routing problem using quantum approximate opti- mization algorithm,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 7564–7573, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    A case study of variational quantum algorithms for a job shop schedul- ing problem,

    D. Amaro, M. Rosenkranz, N. Fitzpatrick, K. Hirano, and M. Fiorentini, “A case study of variational quantum algorithms for a job shop schedul- ing problem,” EPJ Quantum Technology, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 5, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Unsupervised strategies for identifying optimal parameters in quantum approximate optimization algorithm,

    C. Moussa, H. Wang, T. B ¨ack, and V . Dunjko, “Unsupervised strategies for identifying optimal parameters in quantum approximate optimization algorithm,” EPJ Quantum Technology, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 11, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Noise- aware distributed quantum approximate optimization algorithm on near- term quantum hardware,

    K.-C. Chen, X. Xu, F. Burt, C.-Y . Liu, S. Yu, and K. K. Leung, “Noise- aware distributed quantum approximate optimization algorithm on near- term quantum hardware,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , vol. 2, pp. 144–149, IEEE, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Qaoa-in-qaoa: solving large- scale maxcut problems on small quantum machines,

    Z. Zhou, Y . Du, X. Tian, and D. Tao, “Qaoa-in-qaoa: solving large- scale maxcut problems on small quantum machines,” Physical Review Applied, vol. 19, no. 2, p. 024027, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and im- plementation on near-term devices,

    L. Zhou, S.-T. Wang, S. Choi, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, “Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and im- plementation on near-term devices,” Physical Review X , vol. 10, no. 2, p. 021067, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    A review on quantum approximate optimization algorithm and its variants,

    K. Blekos, D. Brand, A. Ceschini, C.-H. Chou, R.-H. Li, K. Pandya, and A. Summer, “A review on quantum approximate optimization algorithm and its variants,” Physics Reports, vol. 1068, pp. 1–66, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    C. S. Raghavendra, K. M. Sivalingam, and T. Znati, Wireless sensor networks. Springer, 2006

    2006

  10. [18]

    An overview of wireless sensor networks towards internet of things,

    M. Kocakulak and I. Butun, “An overview of wireless sensor networks towards internet of things,” in 2017 IEEE 7th annual computing and communication workshop and conference (CCWC) , pp. 1–6, Ieee, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    The mobile sensor deployment problem and the target coverage problem in mobile wireless sensor networks are np-hard,

    N.-T. Nguyen and B.-H. Liu, “The mobile sensor deployment problem and the target coverage problem in mobile wireless sensor networks are np-hard,” IEEE Systems Journal , vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 1312–1315, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Performance of quantum approximate optimization with quantum error detection,

    Z. He, D. Amaro, R. Shaydulin, and M. Pistoia, “Performance of quantum approximate optimization with quantum error detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12104, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Ibm’s roadmap for scaling quantum technology,

    J. Gambetta, “Ibm’s roadmap for scaling quantum technology,” IBM Research Blog (September 2020) , 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Energy- efficient communication protocol for wireless microsensor networks,

    W. R. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, and H. Balakrishnan, “Energy- efficient communication protocol for wireless microsensor networks,” in Proceedings of the 33rd annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, pp. 10–pp, IEEE, 2000

    2000

  15. [23]

    T. S. Rappaport, Wireless communications: principles and practice . Cambridge University Press, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    A tutorial on spectral clustering,

    U. v. Luxburg, “A tutorial on spectral clustering,” Statistics and Com- puting, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 395–416, 2007

    2007

  17. [25]

    Quadratic unconstrained binary optimiza- tion problem preprocessing: Theory and empirical analysis,

    M. Lewis and F. Glover, “Quadratic unconstrained binary optimiza- tion problem preprocessing: Theory and empirical analysis,” Networks, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 79–97, 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    From the quantum approximate optimization algorithm to quantum-inspired optimization,

    S. Hadfield, “From the quantum approximate optimization algorithm to quantum-inspired optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.03599, 2019

    1912 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Modeling and optimization of energy efficient routing in wireless sensor networks,

    J.-H. Lee and I. Moon, “Modeling and optimization of energy efficient routing in wireless sensor networks,” Applied Mathematical Modelling , vol. 38, no. 7-8, pp. 2280–2289, 2014

    2014

  20. [28]

    Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,

    J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,” Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Hamiltoniq: An open-source bench- mark toolkit for quantum computers,

    X. Xu, K.-C. Chen, and R. Wille, “Hamiltoniq: An open-source bench- mark toolkit for quantum computers,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , vol. 02, pp. 518–519, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Fast simulation of high-depth qaoa circuits,

    D. Lykov, R. Shaydulin, Y . Sun, Y . Alexeev, and M. Pistoia, “Fast simulation of high-depth qaoa circuits,” in Proceedings of the SC’23 Workshops of The International Conference on High Performance Com- puting, Network, Storage, and Analysis , pp. 1443–1451, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    What limits the simulation of quantum computers?,

    Y . Zhou, E. M. Stoudenmire, and X. Waintal, “What limits the simulation of quantum computers?,” Physical Review X , vol. 10, no. 4, p. 041038, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Survey of spectral clustering based on graph theory,

    L. Ding, C. Li, D. Jin, and S. Ding, “Survey of spectral clustering based on graph theory,” Pattern Recognition, p. 110366, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Short-depth circuits and error mitigation for large-scale ghz-state preparation, and benchmarking on ibm’s 127-qubit system,

    K.-C. Chen, “Short-depth circuits and error mitigation for large-scale ghz-state preparation, and benchmarking on ibm’s 127-qubit system,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 2, pp. 207–210, IEEE, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Quantum-error-mitigated detectable byzan- tine agreement with dynamical decoupling for distributed quantum computing,

    M. Prest and K.-C. Chen, “Quantum-error-mitigated detectable byzan- tine agreement with dynamical decoupling for distributed quantum computing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.03097 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Generalised circuit partition- ing for distributed quantum computing,

    F. Burt, K.-C. Chen, and K. K. Leung, “Generalised circuit partition- ing for distributed quantum computing,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , vol. 2, pp. 173–178, IEEE, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.