arxiv: 2604.06319 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

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

Aleksei Khindanov, Claire L. Edmunds, Michael Hush, Michael J. Biercuk, Paul Coote, Pranav S. Mundada, Yulun Wang, Yuval Baum

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords heterogeneous architecturefault-tolerant quantum computingqubit overhead reductionquantum error correctionRSA factorizationlogical error reductionqLDPC codesquantum microarchitecture

0 comments

The pith

Heterogeneous quantum architectures reduce physical qubit requirements by up to 138 times

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

The paper tries to establish that a heterogeneous architecture for quantum computers, using different hardware for different tasks along with suitable error correction codes, can deliver up to 138 times fewer physical qubits and 551 times lower logical errors than a single uniform design. It builds this by including special-purpose modules, interfaces between processors and memories, and a compiler that schedules full algorithms down to hardware instructions across the system. A sympathetic reader would care because scaling quantum hardware to hundreds of thousands of qubits is on the horizon, and reducing the overhead makes reliable, large-scale computation more achievable with current or near-future technology. The concrete example of factoring 2048-bit RSA numbers illustrates the savings, dropping to as low as 190 thousand physical qubits under optimistic coupling assumptions.

Core claim

Presenting a complete heterogeneous quantum computing architecture incorporating task-specific hardware selection and QEC encoding, agnostic to code selection or physical qubit parameters, and including special-purpose processing modules with a full microarchitecture for fault-tolerant implementation of interfaces between quantum processing units and quantum memories, using a new fully featured compiler functioning across subsystems at the scale of 1,000 logical qubits to schedule and orchestrate algorithms, a detailed accounting of all operations reveals up to 551x reduction in algorithmic logical error and up to 138x reduction in physical-qubit overhead compared to a monolithic baseline.

What carries the argument

Heterogeneous architecture with task-specific hardware selection, QEC encoding, special-purpose processing modules, and microarchitecture for fault-tolerant interfaces between units and memories, orchestrated by a cross-subsystem compiler.

If this is right

Factoring a 2048-bit RSA integer requires 381k physical qubits and 9.2 days with an experimentally demonstrated grid-coupling topology.
Adding an algorithm-specific accelerator for the Adder subroutine reduces the runtime to 4.9 days at the cost of 439k qubits.
With hypothetical long-range coupling and qLDPC codes for memory, the resource requirement drops to 190k qubits and under 10 days.
The architecture is agnostic to the choice of quantum error correction code and physical qubit parameters.
The tooling enables scheduling algorithms at the scale of 1,000 logical qubits across heterogeneous subsystems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The modular design could encourage development of specialized quantum hardware components rather than uniform large-scale chips.
Similar detailed accounting methods might reveal efficiencies in other quantum algorithms such as quantum simulation.
Prioritizing research on long-range couplings could unlock the large savings from qLDPC memory codes.
Quantum compiler development may shift toward optimizing for heterogeneous resources and interfaces from the outset.

Load-bearing premise

The modeled physical-qubit parameters, grid-coupling topology, and performance of special-purpose accelerators and qLDPC codes must match real hardware exactly.

What would settle it

Implementing the heterogeneous architecture on current quantum hardware for a small algorithm and measuring the actual reduction in physical qubits and error rates compared to a monolithic version.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.06319 by Aleksei Khindanov, Claire L. Edmunds, Michael Hush, Michael J. Biercuk, Paul Coote, Pranav S. Mundada, Yulun Wang, Yuval Baum.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1. Overview of Q-NEXUS: a heterogeneous architecture made of specialized functional modules connected through an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Transferring logical information from the QPU to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Visual representation of the Q-CHESS error-aware [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison between two architectures. In (a) and (b) STQM is used as a memory, whereas in (c) values for both [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison between STQM with transversal teleportation and RAQM with lattice-surgery transfer protocol for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Error budget for 1000-qubit AQFT algorithm for (a) homogeneous baseline (b,c) heterogeneous (RAQM) with QEC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Normalized performance of Q-NEXUS modular architectures (solid polygons) compared to a state-of-the-art monolithic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Quantum computer hardware is predicted to scale over hundreds of thousands of qubits coming online in the next decade. Despite significant theoretical and experimental QEC progress, quantum computer architecture has suffered a significant gap, with bottom-up physical-device-driven challenges largely disconnected from top-down QEC-code-driven considerations. In this work, we unify these two views, presenting a complete heterogeneous quantum computing architecture incorporating task-specific hardware selection and QEC encoding, and agnostic to code selection or physical qubit parameters. Our approach further enables special-purpose processing modules, and includes a full microarchitecture for fault-tolerant implementation of interfaces between quantum processing units and quantum memories. Using this architecture and a new fully featured compiler functioning across subsystems at the scale of $1,000$ logical qubits, we schedule and orchestrate a variety of algorithms down to hardware-specific instructions; a detailed accounting of all operations reveals up to 551x reduction in algorithmic logical error and up to 138x reduction in physical-qubit overhead compared to a monolithic baseline architecture. We then consider the factorization of 2048-bit RSA-integers; using an experimentally demonstrated grid-coupling topology, factoring RSA-2048 requires 381k physical qubits and 9.2 days, which can be reduced to 4.9 days via addition of an algorithm-specific accelerator for the Adder subroutine (requiring 439k qubits). Finally, assuming hypothetical long-range coupling, implementing quantum memory using qLDPC codes reduces the resources required for factoring to just 190k qubits and under 10 days. These results and the tooling we have built indicate that heterogeneous quantum-computer architectures can deliver significant, verifiable benefits on realistic hardware.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper models up to 138x lower physical qubit counts and 551x lower logical error for RSA-2048 factoring by adding task-specific accelerators and qLDPC memory to a grid-coupled heterogeneous setup with a new cross-subsystem compiler, but the multipliers depend on fixed performance assumptions for those modules.

read the letter

The headline result is a modeled 138x cut in physical qubits and 551x drop in logical error for fault-tolerant algorithms by using a heterogeneous setup with specialized accelerators and qLDPC memory, all tied together by a new compiler at 1000-logical-qubit scale. What the paper does well is lay out a complete microarchitecture that handles interfaces between processing units and memories while staying agnostic to specific codes or qubit parameters. They schedule actual algorithms, including RSA-2048 factoring, down to hardware instructions and count every operation. The grid-coupling topology draws from experimental work, which makes the baseline more credible. Adding the algorithm-specific adder accelerator shows a time improvement from 9.2 to 4.9 days, and the qLDPC option under long-range coupling brings qubit count to 190k. This level of end-to-end accounting is rarer than high-level overhead calculations. The soft spots are in the fixed assumptions for the special modules. The big reductions come from the accelerator's latency and error improvements plus the qLDPC density, with no extra costs for coupling. If those specs don't match reality, the advantage over the monolithic case shrinks. The paper presents these as inputs to the compiler rather than testing variations, so the numbers are best read as illustrations under optimistic conditions for the new components. The abstract gives no sensitivity data, which leaves some uncertainty about robustness. This work is for quantum computing architects and compiler researchers who want concrete examples at cryptographically relevant scales. A reader looking for practical ways to reduce hardware requirements will find the scheduling details and topology choices useful. It shows honest engagement with the literature on QEC and hardware and deserves a serious referee to examine the compiler and the modeling choices. I would send it for peer review. The architecture and compiler are substantive enough to justify the effort, with the quantitative claims open to standard scrutiny on assumptions.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a heterogeneous quantum computing architecture incorporating task-specific hardware modules, QEC encodings, and a full microarchitecture for fault-tolerant interfaces between quantum processing units and memories. It introduces a new compiler that schedules algorithms at the scale of 1,000 logical qubits down to hardware-specific instructions. Using detailed operation accounting, the paper claims up to 551x reduction in algorithmic logical error and up to 138x reduction in physical-qubit overhead versus a monolithic baseline. Concrete estimates are given for 2048-bit RSA factorization: 381k physical qubits and 9.2 days using an experimentally demonstrated grid-coupling topology, reducible to 4.9 days with an Adder accelerator (439k qubits), and further to 190k qubits and under 10 days assuming hypothetical long-range coupling with qLDPC memory codes.

Significance. If the performance models hold, the work unifies physical-device and QEC perspectives in an architecture agnostic to code and qubit parameters, demonstrating how heterogeneity and special-purpose modules can substantially lower resources for fault-tolerant computation. A key strength is the fully featured compiler and complete operation accounting that produces concrete, falsifiable numbers for realistic algorithms like RSA-2048, rather than abstract bounds. This has direct relevance for scaling hardware to hundreds of thousands of qubits by quantifying benefits of task-specific accelerators and advanced memory codes.

major comments (2)

The headline reductions of 551x in logical error and 138x in physical qubits are computed from fixed performance assumptions on the special-purpose Adder accelerator (latency and error-rate gains with no extra qubit/gate cost) and qLDPC memory density under long-range coupling. The RSA-2048 example shows these directly alter the overhead (381k to 190k qubits), so the central claim requires either explicit sensitivity analysis over these parameters or a clear statement that the numbers are illustrative only under the stated models.
The detailed accounting is load-bearing for all quantitative claims, yet the manuscript provides no full methods description, data tables of operation counts, or error bars on the derived reduction factors. Without these, the 138x and 551x figures cannot be independently reproduced from the given text, undermining verification of the heterogeneous advantage over the monolithic baseline constructed with the same physical parameters.

minor comments (2)

The abstract states the grid-coupling topology is 'experimentally demonstrated' but does not cite the specific experiment or quantify any interface overhead in the microarchitecture; add this reference and accounting detail for clarity.
Clarify the exact monolithic baseline physical-qubit count used to arrive at the 'up to 138x' factor, as the RSA example gives absolute numbers but not the corresponding baseline for direct comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful review and for highlighting both the strengths of the work and areas for improvement. We address the major comments point by point below and will incorporate revisions to enhance the manuscript's clarity and reproducibility.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The headline reductions of 551x in logical error and 138x in physical qubits are computed from fixed performance assumptions on the special-purpose Adder accelerator (latency and error-rate gains with no extra qubit/gate cost) and qLDPC memory density under long-range coupling. The RSA-2048 example shows these directly alter the overhead (381k to 190k qubits), so the central claim requires either explicit sensitivity analysis over these parameters or a clear statement that the numbers are illustrative only under the stated models.

Authors: The manuscript already qualifies the qLDPC results as assuming hypothetical long-range coupling and presents the Adder accelerator as an optional module with stated benefits. Nevertheless, we agree that the dependence on these assumptions should be made more explicit for the headline claims. In the revision we will add a dedicated sensitivity analysis subsection that varies the key parameters (accelerator latency/error-rate gains and qLDPC density) and recomputes the reduction factors and RSA-2048 resource estimates accordingly. We will also insert a clear statement that the reported 551x and 138x figures are illustrative under the stated performance models. These changes will directly address the concern while preserving the concrete examples. revision: yes
Referee: The detailed accounting is load-bearing for all quantitative claims, yet the manuscript provides no full methods description, data tables of operation counts, or error bars on the derived reduction factors. Without these, the 138x and 551x figures cannot be independently reproduced from the given text, undermining verification of the heterogeneous advantage over the monolithic baseline constructed with the same physical parameters.

Authors: We concur that the absence of a full methods description and supporting data tables limits independent verification. In the revised manuscript we will substantially expand the Methods section to document the compiler's scheduling algorithm, the precise operation-counting procedure, and all modeling assumptions used to derive logical-error and physical-qubit reductions. We will also add supplementary tables that list the operation counts (and derived quantities) for the RSA-2048 instance and other benchmarks under both the heterogeneous and monolithic architectures. Where the underlying physical parameters carry uncertainty, we will include error bars or ranges on the reported reduction factors. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Resource reductions obtained via direct scheduling comparison to monolithic baseline; no circular reduction to inputs

full rationale

The paper constructs a heterogeneous architecture model with task-specific modules and qLDPC memory, then uses a compiler to schedule algorithms (including RSA-2048) and performs a full operation accounting against an explicitly defined monolithic baseline that employs identical physical parameters and code family. The reported 138x qubit and 551x logical-error reductions are direct numerical outputs of this side-by-side accounting rather than quantities fitted, self-defined, or imported via self-citation. No equations in the provided text equate a claimed prediction to its own modeling inputs by construction, and no load-bearing self-citations or ansatzes are invoked to justify the architecture choices. The modeling assumptions (grid-coupling overhead, accelerator performance, qLDPC density) are treated as fixed inputs whose validity is external to the derivation chain itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central resource estimates rest on standard QEC assumptions and experimentally reported hardware parameters; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)

physical qubit error rates and coupling strengths
Taken from experimental demonstrations; specific numerical values drive the overhead calculations.
grid-coupling topology parameters
Assumed from the cited experimental grid-coupling work.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Standard fault-tolerance thresholds and decoding assumptions for surface codes and qLDPC codes hold under the modeled noise.
Invoked throughout the resource accounting for logical error rates.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5636 in / 1181 out tokens · 27661 ms · 2026-05-10T18:30:23.770473+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
heterogeneous quantum computing architecture incorporating task-specific hardware selection and QEC encoding... Q-CHESS... detailed accounting of all operations reveals up to 551x reduction in algorithmic logical error and up to 138x reduction in physical-qubit overhead

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

GreenPeas: Unlocking Adaptive Quantum Error Correction with Just-in-Time Decoding Hypergraphs
quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

GreenPeas delivers a just-in-time GPU compiler for decoding hypergraphs that achieves >10x speedup on surface and bivariate bicycle codes, unlocking circuit-level decoding for adaptive quantum error correction.
Space-Time Tradeoffs of Pauli-Based Computation in Distributed qLDPC Architectures
quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Large qLDPC blocks in distributed quantum computing enable Pauli-based computation to run up to 10x faster than surface codes for optimization algorithms by using spare nodes to bypass serialization bottlenecks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

116 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 8 internal anchors

[1]

The White House, National security memorandum on promoting united states leadership in quantum comput- ing while mitigating risks to vulnerable cryptographic systems, National Archives (2022)

2022
[2]

B. W. Reichardtet al.(Atom Computing), Fault- tolerant quantum computation with a neutral atom pro- cessor (2025), arXiv:2411.11822 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[3]

H. Zhou, C. Zhao, M. Cain, D. Bluvstein, N. Maskara, C. Duckering, H.-Y. Hu, S.-T. Wang, A. Kubica, and M. D. Lukin, Nature646, 303 (2025)

2025
[4]

Acharyaet al.(Google Quantum AI and Collabora- tors), Nature638, 920 (2025)

R. Acharyaet al.(Google Quantum AI and Collabora- tors), Nature638, 920 (2025)

2025
[5]

Quantum Error-Corrected Computation of Molecular Energies

K. Yamamotoet al.(Quantinuum), Quantum Error- Corrected Computation of Molecular Energies (2025), arXiv:2505.09133 [quant-ph] version: 1

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[6]

Franke, J

D. Franke, J. Clarke, L. Vandersypen, and M. Veldhorst, Microprocessors and Microsystems67, 1 (2019)

2019
[7]

Hornibrook, J

J. Hornibrook, J. Colless, I. Conway Lamb, S. Pauka, H. Lu, A. Gossard, J. Watson, G. Gardner, S. Fallahi, M. Manfra, and D. Reilly, Physical Review Applied3, 024010 (2015)

2015
[8]

Krinner, S

S. Krinner, S. Storz, P. Kurpiers, P. Magnard, J. Hein- soo, R. Keller, J. L¨ utolf, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, EPJ Quantum Technology6, 2 (2019)

2019
[9]

Integration and Resource Estimation of Cryoelectronics for Superconducting Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computers

S. Kawabata, Integration and Resource Estimation of Cryoelectronics for Superconducting Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computers (2026), arXiv:2601.03922 [quant- ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[10]

Malinowski, D

M. Malinowski, D. Allcock, and C. Ballance, PRX Quantum4, 040313 (2023)

2023
[11]

Castelvecchi, Nature624, 238–238 (2023)

D. Castelvecchi, Nature624, 238–238 (2023)

2023
[12]

IBM, IBM Quantum System Two: the era of quantum utility is here, https://www.ibm.com/quantum/blog/q uantum-roadmap-2033 (2023), accessed: 2026-02-17

2033
[13]

IBM, IBM Quantum Roadmap, https://www.ibm.co m/downloads/documents/us-en/1443d5cda24021e4 (2025), accessed: 2026-02-17

2025
[14]

Field, A

M. Field, A. Q. Chen, B. Scharmann, E. A. Sete, F. Oruc, K. Vu, V. Kosenko, J. Y. Mutus, S. Po- letto, and A. Bestwick, Physical Review Applied21, 10.1103/physrevapplied.21.054063 (2024)

work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.21.054063 2024
[15]

pasqal.com/newsroom/pasqal-releases-2025-roadmap/ (2025), accessed: 2026-02-18

Pasqal, Pasqal Releases 2025 Roadmap Showcasing Upgradable Platform from Today’s Quantum Solutions to Tomorrow’s Fault-Tolerant Systems, https://www. pasqal.com/newsroom/pasqal-releases-2025-roadmap/ (2025), accessed: 2026-02-18

2025
[16]

IonQ, IonQ|Roadmap, https://www.ionq.com/roadm ap (2025), accessed: 2026-02-18

2025
[17]

Xanadu, Xanadu|Xanadu introduces Aurora: world’s first scalable, networked and modular quantum com- puter, https://www.xanadu.ai/press/xanadu-introduce s-aurora-worlds-first-scalable-networked-and-modular -quantum-computer (2025), accessed: 2026-02-18

2025
[18]

Caleffi, M

M. Caleffi, M. Amoretti, D. Ferrari, J. Illiano, A. Man- zalini, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, Computer Networks254, 110672 (2024)

2024
[19]

N. H. Nickerson, J. F. Fitzsimons, and S. C. Benjamin, Phys. Rev. X4, 041041 (2014)

2014
[20]

T. H. Haug, T. Hillmann, A. F. Kockum, and R. V. Laer, Lattice surgery with bell measurements: Modu- lar fault-tolerant quantum computation at low entan- glement cost (2025), arXiv:2510.13541 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[21]

Jacinto, E

H. Jacinto, E. Gouzien, and N. Sangouard, Physical Re- view Research8, 10.1103/v9ln-c4v2 (2026)

work page doi:10.1103/v9ln-c4v2 2026
[22]

Singh, F

S. Singh, F. Gu, S. de Bone, E. Villase˜ nor, D. Elk- ouss, and J. Borregaard, npj Quantum Information12, 10.1038/s41534-025-01146-2 (2025)

work page doi:10.1038/s41534-025-01146-2 2025
[23]

Monroe, R

C. Monroe, R. Raussendorf, A. Ruthven, K. R. Brown, P. Maunz, L.-M. Duan, and J. Kim, Physical Review A 89, 022317 (2014)

2014
[24]

Magnard, S

P. Magnard, S. Storz, P. Kurpiers, J. Sch¨ ar, F. Marxer, J. L¨ utolf, T. Walter, J.-C. Besse, M. Gabureac, K. Reuer, A. Akin, B. Royer, A. Blais, and A. Wall- raff, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 260502 (2020)

2020
[25]

K. Heya, T. Phung, M. Malekakhlagh, R. Steiner, M. Turchetti, W. Shanks, J. Mamin, W.-S. Lu, Y. P. Kandel, N. Sundaresan, and J. Orcutt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 200801 (2025)

2025
[26]

Quantum, Nu Quantum, https://www.nu-quantum .com/, accessed: 2026-02-19

N. Quantum, Nu Quantum, https://www.nu-quantum .com/, accessed: 2026-02-19

2026
[27]

Aliro, Aliro - Quantum Powered Security, https://ww w.aliroquantum.com, accessed: 2026-02-19

2026
[28]

Qunnect, Enabling the Quantum Internet, https://qu nnect.inc/, accessed: 2026-02-19

2026
[29]

Gidney and M

C. Gidney and M. Ekera, Quantum5, 433 (2021)

2021
[30]

How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers with less than a million noisy qubits

C. Gidney, How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers with less than a million noisy qubits (2025), arXiv:2505.15917 [quant-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2048
[31]

F. K. Marqversen, G. Baranes, M. Sirotin, and J. Bor- regaard, Fault-tolerant interfaces for modular quan- tum computing on diverse qubit platforms (2025), arXiv:2510.05221 [quant-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[32]

Strikis and L

A. Strikis and L. Berent, PRX Quantum4, 020321 (2023)

2023
[33]

Sutcliffe, B

E. Sutcliffe, B. Jonnadula, C. Le Gall, A. E. Moylett, and C. M. Westoby, in2025 IEEE International Confer- ence on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), 26 Vol. 01 (2025) pp. 649–657

2025
[34]

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

P. Webster, L. Berent, O. Chandra, E. T. Hockings, N. Baspin, F. Thomsen, S. C. Smith, and L. Z. Cohen, The Pinnacle Architecture: Reducing the cost of break- ing RSA-2048 to 100 000 physical qubits using quantum LDPC codes (2026), arXiv:2602.11457 [quant-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2048
[35]

M. Cain, Q. Xu, R. King, L. R. B. Picard, H. Levine, M. Endres, J. Preskill, H.-Y. Huang, and D. Blu- vstein, Shor’s algorithm is possible with as few as 10,000 reconfigurable atomic qubits (2026), arXiv:2603.28627 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2026
[36]

S. A. Kutin, Shor’s algorithm on a nearest-neighbor ma- chine (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0609001 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2006
[37]

T. J. Yoder, E. Schoute, P. Rall, E. Pritchett, J. M. Gambetta, A. W. Cross, M. Carroll, and M. E. Beverland, Tour de gross: A modular quan- tum computer based on bivariate bicycle codes (2025), arXiv:2506.03094 [quant-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025
[38]

Litinski, Quantum3, 128 (2019)

D. Litinski, Quantum3, 128 (2019)

2019
[39]

S. Kan, Z. Du, C. Liu, M. Wang, Y. Ding, A. Li, Y. Mao, and S. Stein, SPARO: Surface-code Pauli-based Architectural Resource Optimization for Fault-tolerant Quantum Computing (2025), arXiv:2504.21854 [quant- ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[40]

Co-designed superconducting architecture for lattice surgery of surface codes with quantum interface routing card,

C. Guinn, S. Stein, E. Tureci, G. Avis, C. Liu, S. Kras- tanov, A. A. Houck, and A. Li, Co-Designed Super- conducting Architecture for Lattice Surgery of Surface Codes with Quantum Interface Routing Card (2023), arXiv:2312.01246 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[41]

Robertson, H

A. Robertson, H. Gao, and Y. R. Sanders, A Re- source Allocating Compiler for Lattice Surgery (2025), arXiv:2506.04620 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[42]

J. L. Hennessy, D. A. Patterson, and K. Asanovi´ c, Computer architecture: a quantitative approach, 5th ed. (Morgan Kaufmann/Elsevier, Waltham, MA, 2012)

2012
[43]

D. A. Patterson, J. L. Hennessy, and P. Alexan- der,Computer organization and design: the hard- ware/software interface, arm®edition ed. (Else- vier/Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam ; Boston, 2017)

2017
[44]

von Neumann, (J

J. von Neumann, (J. P. Eckert and J. Mauchly are seen by many to have made equal intellectual contri- butions but their names were controversially omitted [43].) ,First Draft of a Report on the EDV AC, Tech. Rep. (Moore School of Electrical Engineering, Univer- sity of Pennsylvania, 1945) contract No. W-670-ORD- 4926, U.S. Army Ordnance Department

1945
[45]

Zhang, Z.-Y

J. Zhang, Z.-Y. Chen, Y.-J. Wang, B.-H. Lu, H.-F. Zhang, J.-N. Li, P. Duan, Y.-C. Wu, and G.-P. Guo, npj Quantum Information11, 177 (2025)

2025
[46]

Pogorelov, F

I. Pogorelov, F. Butt, L. Postler, C. D. Marciniak, P. Schindler, M. M¨ uller, and T. Monz, Nature Physics 21, 298–303 (2025)

2025
[47]

Harper and S

R. Harper and S. T. Flammia, Physical Review Letters 122, 080504 (2019)

2019
[48]

Wanget al.(Quantinuum), Science Advances10, eado9024 (2024)

Y. Wanget al.(Quantinuum), Science Advances10, eado9024 (2024)

2024
[49]

P. S. Rodriguezet al.(QuEra), Nature645, 620 (2025)

2025
[50]

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 (2024), arXiv:2409.17595 [quant-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024
[51]

Kobori, Y

T. Kobori, Y. Suzuki, Y. Ueno, T. Tanimoto, S. Todo, and Y. Tokunaga, in2025 IEEE International Sym- posium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA)(2025) pp. 304–320

2025
[52]

AbuGhanem, Photonic quantum computers (2024), arXiv:2409.08229 [quant-ph]

M. AbuGhanem, Photonic quantum computers (2024), arXiv:2409.08229 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[53]

X. Gu, A. F. Kockum, A. Miranowicz, Y.-x. Liu, and F. Nori, Physics Reports718-719, 1 (2017)

2017
[54]

Wang, C.-Y

P. Wang, C.-Y. Luan, M. Qiao, M. Um, J. Zhang, Y. Wang, X. Yuan, M. Gu, J. Zhang, and K. Kim, Na- ture Communications12, 233 (2021)

2021
[55]

C. Liu, M. Wang, S. A. Stein, Y. Ding, and A. Li, Quan- tum Memory: A Missing Piece in Quantum Computing Units (2023), arXiv:2309.14432 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[56]

Q. Xu, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, C. A. Pattison, N. Raveen- dran, D. Bluvstein, J. Wurtz, B. Vasi´ c, M. D. Lukin, L. Jiang, and H. Zhou, Nature Physics20, 1084–1090 (2024)

2024
[57]

F. Wang, M. Ren, W. Sun, M. Guo, M. J. Sellars, R. L. Ahlefeldt, J. G. Bartholomew, J. Yao, S. Liu, and M. Zhong, PRX Quantum6, 010302 (2025)

2025
[58]

A. C. Hughes, R. Srinivas, C. M. L¨ oschnauer, H. M. Knaack, R. Matt, C. J. Ballance, M. Malinowski, T. P. Harty, and R. T. Sutherland, Trapped-ion two-qubit gates with>99.99% fidelity without ground-state cool- ing (2025), arXiv:2510.17286 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[59]

Khodjasteh, J

K. Khodjasteh, J. Sastrawan, D. Hayes, T. J. Green, M. J. Biercuk, and L. Viola, Nature Communications 4, 2045 (2013)

2045
[60]

Ball, The Best Qubits for Quantum Computing Might Just Be Atoms (2024)

P. Ball, The Best Qubits for Quantum Computing Might Just Be Atoms (2024)

2024
[61]

Frackiewicz, Quantum Showdown: Superconducting vs Trapped Ion vs Photonic – Who Will Rule Quantum Computing? (2025)

M. Frackiewicz, Quantum Showdown: Superconducting vs Trapped Ion vs Photonic – Who Will Rule Quantum Computing? (2025)

2025
[62]

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Program solicitation: Heterogeneous Architectures for Quantum (HARQ), https://sam.gov/opp/944007d554364a1aad 811469028a7e73/view (2025), accessed: 2026-02-20

2025
[63]

Bravyi, A

S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P. Rall, and T. J. Yoder, Nature627, 778–782 (2024)

2024
[64]

Mariantoni, H

M. Mariantoni, H. Wang, T. Yamamoto, M. Neeley, R. C. Bialczak, Y. Chen, M. Lenander, E. Lucero, A. D. O’Connell, D. Sank, M. Weides, J. Wenner, Y. Yin, J. Zhao, A. N. Korotkov, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Mar- tinis, Science334, 61 (2011)

2011
[65]

M. F. Brandl, A Quantum von Neumann Archi- tecture for Large-Scale Quantum Computing (2017), arXiv:1702.02583 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2017
[66]

Gouzien and N

E. Gouzien and N. Sangouard, Physical Review Letters 127, 140503 (2021)

2021
[67]

Stein, S

S. Stein, S. Sussman, T. Tomesh, C. Guinn, E. Tureci, S. F. Lin, W. Tang, J. Ang, S. Chakram, A. Li, M. Martonosi, F. T. Chong, A. A. Houck, I. L. Chuang, and M. A. DeMarco, Microarchitectures for hetero- geneous superconducting quantum computers (2023), arXiv:2305.03243 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[68]

Andres-Martinez, T

P. Andres-Martinez, T. Forrer, D. Mills, J.-Y. Wu, L. Henaut, K. Yamamoto, M. Murao, and R. Duncan, Quantum Science and Technology9, 045021 (2024)

2024
[69]

Helios: A 98-qubit trapped-ion quantum computer,

A. Ransfordet al.(Quantinuum), Helios: A 98-qubit trapped-ion quantum computer (2025), arXiv:2511.05465 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[70]

K.-C. Chen, F. Burt, N. K. Panigrahy, and K. K. Le- ung, Adaptive Resource Orchestration for Distributed Quantum Computing Systems (2025), arXiv:2512.24902 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[71]

X. Fang, J. Ruan, S. Prabhu, A. Li, T. Hum- ble, D. Tullsen, and Y. Ding, Bridging Super- 27 conducting and Neutral-Atom Platforms for Effi- cient Fault-Tolerant Quantum Architectures (2026), arXiv:2601.10144 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2026
[72]

Rudolph, What is the logical gate speed of a pho- tonic quantum computer?, Quantum Frontiers (2023), accessed: 2024-05-22

T. Rudolph, What is the logical gate speed of a pho- tonic quantum computer?, Quantum Frontiers (2023), accessed: 2024-05-22

2023
[73]

Gidney and A

C. Gidney and A. G. Fowler, Quantum3, 135 (2019)

2019
[74]

S. A. Cuccaro, T. G. Draper, S. A. Kutin, and D. P. Moulton, A new quantum ripple-carry addition circuit (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0410184 [quant-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2004
[75]

D. Jiao, M. Bayanifar, A. Ashikhmin, and O. Tirkkonen, Transversal Toffoli-gate in Hybrid-code System (2025), arXiv:2511.09265 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[76]

Haah and M

J. Haah and M. B. Hastings, Quantum2, 71 (2018), arXiv:1709.02832 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2018
[77]

H. J. Kimble, Nature453, 1023 (2008)

2008
[78]

Kaiser, C

M. Kaiser, C. Glaser, L. Y. Ley, J. Grimmel, H. Hatter- mann, D. Bothner, D. Koelle, R. Kleiner, D. Petrosyan, A. G¨ unther, and J. Fort´ agh, Physical Review Research 4, 013207 (2022)

2022
[79]

Kumar, A

A. Kumar, A. Suleymanzade, M. Stone, L. Taneja, A. Anferov, D. I. Schuster, and J. Simon, Nature615, 614 (2023)

2023
[80]

Gottesman and I

D. Gottesman and I. L. Chuang, Nature402, 390 (1999)

1999

Showing first 80 references.