Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Distributing Quantum Computations, Shot-wise

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Distributing the shots of a single quantum circuit across multiple noisy QPUs and merging their outputs yields more reliable final distributions than running all shots on one QPU, without ever beating the best individual machine.

desk verdict Solid incremental formalization of shot-wise distribution with an honest but overclaimed experimental narrative; the calibration-transfer premise is the weak spot and the informed-policy advantage is not yet statistically supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16530 v1 pith:V5DHEFOW submitted 2024-11-25 quant-ph cs.ETcs.SE

Giuseppe Bisicchia , Giuseppe Clemente , Jose Garcia-Alonso , Juan Manuel Murillo Rodríguez , Massimo D'Elia , Antonio Brogi This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.ETcs.SE MSC 81P68
keywords shot-wisedistributionquantumcomputationNISQdevicesshotallocationHellingerdistancemeanintegratedsquareerrorcalibrationensemblemerging
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 proposes that the many repeated runs (shots) of a single quantum circuit need not all execute on one machine: they can be split across several noisy quantum processors and the resulting count distributions merged into one output. The central claim is that this shot-wise distribution makes final results more reliable than running the whole computation on one QPU, in the specific sense that worst-case error decreases as more QPUs are included while best-case error rises only slightly. The authors support this with experiments on circuits with 5 and 8 qubits across up to seven QPUs of two different hardware types, comparing uniform, Hellinger-distance-based, and mean-integrated-square-error-based split and merge policies. A sympathetic reader would care because choosing the single best QPU in advance is often impractical, and shot-wise distribution offers a fallback that tracks the average and improves the worst case.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the calibration-and-ranking stage paired with split and merge policies. Each QPU is assigned an unreliability coefficient equal to the mean squared Hellinger distance between its output and the ideal distribution on ten random benchmark circuits, and those coefficients set the split weights for production. Merging is done either by uniform counts, by minimizing a weighted squared Hellinger distance, or by minimizing the mean integrated square error (MISE), which balances the bias of each QPU's distribution against the statistical variance from a finite number of shots. A jackknife bias-correction procedure is applied because the estimated Hellinger distance is biased upward by finite counts.

What would settle it

For a circuit whose ideal distribution is classically computable, calibrate on ten random circuits and then measure the Hellinger distance of the shot-wise merged output; if a calibration-informed policy yields a larger merged error than uniform splitting on the same QPU set, or if adding more QPUs increases the maximum error, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's empirical discovery is that merging the output distributions of many QPUs, each executing a share of the shots, produces results that are never better than the best individual QPU but consistently reduce the worst-case Hellinger distance to the ideal distribution and shrink the spread of outcomes. As the number of QPUs grows, the maximum error decreases while the minimum error increases slightly, a robustness effect rather than an accuracy gain. The paper also reports that calibration-informed split and merge policies (Hellinger and MISE) generally improve over naive uniform splitting and merging, with the GHZ circuit being a documented exception where the trend reverses.

Load-bearing premise

Unreliability measured on ten random benchmark circuits predicts how each QPU will perform on the actual target circuit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • As the number of QPUs in the pool grows, the worst observed error drops while the best-case error rises only slightly, so users who cannot identify the best machine in advance get a dependable worst-case guarantee.
  • Calibration-informed Hellinger and MISE policies usually beat uniform splitting and merging, so the calibration stage has real value whenever its reliability ranking transfers to the production circuit.
  • The shot-wise method is orthogonal to error mitigation, error correction, and circuit cutting, and can be applied alongside all of them without modification.
  • The framework supports incremental execution and stopping criteria, so a user can spend shot budget adaptively and stop early when an accuracy target is reached.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If calibration transfer fails, as the GHZ result hints it can, informed policies may underperform uniform allocation; a safer production default could be uniform splitting with MISE merging, re-calibrated per circuit family.
  • The variance-reduction effect resembles ensemble averaging and is likely strongest when QPU noise is heterogeneous and only weakly correlated across machines, a prediction that can be tested by measuring per-QPU error correlations.
  • Combining shot-wise distribution with circuit cutting could let each fragment of a large circuit have its shots spread across machines, extending the approach beyond the current single-circuit scope.
  • Because the MISE policy explicitly accounts for finite-shot variance, its advantage over uniform merging should grow as the per-QPU shot budget shrinks, which is a concrete testable extension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. Bisicchia et al. propose a 'shot-wise' framework in which the shots of a single quantum circuit are split among several heterogeneous QPUs, executed, and then merged into one output distribution. The framework includes a calibration stage that ranks QPUs by unreliability measured on random benchmark circuits, customizable split/merge policies (uniform, Hellinger, MISE), and an incremental execution/update loop. The experiments use MQT Bench circuits on IBM and IonQ simulators and compare nine split/merge combinations against single-QPU baselines. The reported findings are that split-merged results are robust and track the average baseline, that the worst-case error decreases as more QPUs are used, and that calibrated policies sometimes improve on uniform allocation, with the GHZ circuit as an acknowledged exception.

Significance. Shot-wise distribution is a plausible and useful robustness layer for heterogeneous NISQ backends: it reduces worst-case error and variance and is orthogonal to circuit cutting and error mitigation. The formalization of Hellinger and MISE policies with bias correction and the public dataset are assets. However, the accuracy advantage over the best single QPU claimed in the Introduction and Abstract is not supported; the empirical evidence supports only worst-case robustness and closeness to the average baseline. The calibration transfer from random 5-qubit circuits to structured 8-qubit tasks is acknowledged by the authors as unreliable, and the GHZ results illustrate a failure of the calibrated policies. Therefore the central claim as stated needs to be restricted and the statistical evidence strengthened.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. I and Sec. III B] The central claim of Sec. I that distributing and merging shots 'produces final output distributions more reliable than performing the whole computation on a single QPU' is broader than the evidence reported in Sec. III B. The text at the start of Sec. III B states that split-merged results 'never improve the best baseline' and are 'compatible with the average between the different baselines', and Fig. 5 shows the maximum error decreasing while the minimum error rises. That is a worst-case robustness and variance-reduction statement, not a general accuracy or reliability improvement over every single-QPU run; the abstract and conclusion should be rephrased accordingly.
  2. [Sec. II C.2, Sec. III A, Sec. III B] The calibration-transfer premise is load-bearing but not validated. The unreliability coefficients used by the Hellinger and MISE split/merge policies are computed on 10 Haar-random 5-qubit circuits (Sec. III A, Fig. 3), while the production evaluation includes structured 5- and 8-qubit circuits such as GHZ, Grover, VQE and QNN (Sec. III B). The authors explicitly write in Sec. II C.2 that 'the performance at calibration on a fixed set of random circuits does not necessarily reflect the performance observed on specific tasks', and the GHZ panels in Sec. III B show the opposite ranking, with Hellinger/MISE underperforming uniform. Consequently, the reported improvements of Hellinger/MISE over uniform in the other circuits cannot be attributed to the calibration mechanism without either per-circuit calibration or a demonstrated transferability criterion; as it stands, the evidence is compatible with calibration being unnecessary or even harmful.
  3. [Sec. III B, Figs. 5-7] The quantitative claims about 'consistently decreases' maximum error and about policy rankings are made from extremal summaries without confidence intervals, repeated runs, or paired statistical comparisons. Figures 5-7 plot means and data ranges as a function of number of QPUs, but no standard errors, confidence intervals, or per-policy hypothesis tests are reported, and the number of independent executions per circuit/policy is not specified. On a small benchmark suite with only six circuit types, such as those in Fig. 4, the observed differences between Hellinger/MISE and uniform are not statistically distinguishable from shot noise and QPU drift; the authors should provide error bars or resampling-based intervals and pairwise tests for the key comparisons.
  4. [Sec. III B, Fig. 4] The sentence 'either splitting or merging using the Hellinger or MISE strategy improves the results of just uniformly splitting and naively merging according to the uniform strategies alone' is contradicted by the GHZ case acknowledged in the same paragraph and is not supported by any quantitative summary. A per-policy table of median and best/worst Hellinger distances across circuits, with differences relative to uniform-uniform, would make the claim checkable.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, Sec. I, Sec. V] The Abstract and Conclusion V phrase the outcome as 'often outperforming single QPU runs' and 'often superior to individual QPUs', while Sec. III B says the split-merged results 'never improve the best baseline'. Please make the claims consistent throughout.
  2. [Eq. (4)] Equation (4) contains a garbled sentence: 'The variables in Eq. (4) are unbiased estimators of which is an unbiased estimator of p^{(w)}_x'. This should be rewritten for clarity.
  3. [Table I and Sec. III A] Table I labels the IonQ entries as 'QPU emulators' while the surrounding text refers to them as QPUs; please clarify which entries are simulators and whether the conclusions apply to real quantum hardware.
  4. [Sec. III A] There is a typo in 'OPENQAMS2', which should be 'OpenQASM 2'; please also verify that the Zenodo reference [7] provides a persistent and complete dataset.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the shot-wise distribution claims rest on external benchmark evaluations against ideal distributions, with calibration and production circuits kept distinct.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is not circular. The unreliability index u_m is an empirical Hellinger-distance measurement against exactly computable ideal distributions on ten Haar-random 5-qubit circuits (Sec. II C.4 and Sec. III A), and the Hellinger/MISE split and merge weights are estimated from those calibration data. The production evaluation (Sec. III B) then measures Hellinger distance to the ideal distribution of separate MQT Bench tasks (random, DJ, GHZ, Grover, QNN, VQE) that are not in the calibration set. No equation in the paper identifies the production error with the calibration objective: the MISE optimum (Eq. A10) and Hellinger barycenter (Eq. A2) are functions of calibration-circuit QPU distributions and ideals, whereas the reported d_H values are computed on different target circuits. The paper even asserts the opposite of a forced relation: 'the performance at calibration on a fixed set of random circuits does not necessarily reflect the performance observed on specific tasks' (Sec. II C.2), and Sec. III B documents the GHZ case where the Hellinger/MISE ranking inverts. The improved worst-case behavior follows from convexity of the squared Hellinger distance under convex merging, a mathematical property independent of the fitted weights, so it is not a fitted input masquerading as a prediction. Self-citations [8,9] are used only for qualitative advantages and prior prototype context, not as the load-bearing derivation of the experimental claims. Therefore the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and receives score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework's load-bearing inputs are the per-QPU unreliability scores fitted at calibration, and their transfer to production circuits. No new physical entities are introduced. The MISE and Hellinger weights are also fitted from data; the main correctness risk is that calibration scores may mislead, as the authors themselves observe for GHZ.

free parameters (2)
  • per-QPU unreliability coefficients u_m = Example medians from Table I: ibm_sherbrooke 0.0013, ibm_kyoto 0.0029, simulators around 0.10
    Estimated from Hellinger distance to ideal on 10 random calibration circuits (Fig. 3) and used to set split weights; these are data-fitted scores, not derived constants.
  • optimal split/merge weights w_m = not tabulated; optimized by Hellinger or MISE on calibration or production counts
    The Hellinger and MISE policies choose convex weights from measured counts (Eqs. A2 and A10); these are fitted per experiment and are the mechanism by which calibration influences outcomes.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Calibration on 10 random Haar circuits gives relative QPU quality that transfers to production circuits.
    The entire Hellinger and MISE split uses calibration unreliabilities; the authors concede in Sec II C.2 that random-circuit performance need not reflect task-specific performance, and GHZ data in Sec III B contradict the calibrated ranking.
  • domain assumption QPU noise biases are stable over the calibration-to-production time window.
    Figure 3 shows fluctuations over a month; the text states calibration should be refreshed at the order of regions of stability (a few hours), so the method presupposes this refresh cadence.
  • standard math Measured counts follow the multinomial model of Eq. (1) with fixed per-QPU probabilities p_x, and the jackknife bias correction in Appendix B is valid.
    The MISE and Hellinger estimates and error formulas rest on this statistical model; it is standard but unverified on the specific devices.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Distributing Quantum Computations, Shot-wise." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V5DHEFOW

@misc{pith2026241116530,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Distributing Quantum Computations, Shot-wise},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V5DHEFOW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16530}
}
read the original abstract

NISQ (Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum) era constraints, high sensitivity to noise and limited qubit count, impose significant barriers on the usability of QPUs (Quantum Process Units) capabilities. To overcome these challenges, researchers are exploring methods to maximize the utility of existing QPUs despite their limitations. Building upon the idea that the execution of a quantum circuit's shots needs not to be treated as a singular monolithic unit, we propose a methodological framework, termed shot-wise, which enables the distribution of shots for a single circuit across multiple QPUs. Our framework features customizable policies to adapt to various scenarios. Additionally, it introduces a calibration method to pre-evaluate the accuracy and reliability of each QPU's output before the actual distribution process and an incremental execution mechanism for dynamically managing the shot allocation and policy updates. Such an approach enables flexible and fine-grained management of the distribution process, taking into account various user-defined constraints and (contrasting) objectives. Experimental findings show that while these strategies generally do not exceed the best individual QPU results, they maintain robustness and align closely with average outcomes. Overall, the shot-wise methodology improves result stability and often outperforms single QPU runs, offering a flexible approach to managing variability in quantum computing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16530 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. $N$-Party Hadamard Test for Distributed Quantum Computation

    quant-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Virtual entanglement purification via noisy entanglement reaches a 99.9% virtual Bell fidelity under local depolarizing noise, above the 99.5% physical purification cap, with lower sampling overhead than optimal circu...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Calibration — initial split Deviations from a uniform initial split at calibration can be motivated by various factors: the economic cost per shot for each QPU, different queue and execution times, some information about the accuracy of each QPU for the task in question. In general, this policy should reflect all the preferences of the user regarding all ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    training

    Calibration — benchmarks Depending on the task considered in production, it might be possible to identify a class of circuits that can be used as a “training” set for the calibration stage, so that one can provide with more tailored information for the production stage. Even if the tasks considered are generic, it could be useful, for example, to test the...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Some preprocessing and postprocessing might be involved at this step

    Calibration — executions The benchmark circuits are executed on each QPU with the selected number of shots. Some preprocessing and postprocessing might be involved at this step. For example, the circuit might be decomposed in different primitive gates for each QPU or one could apply different mitigation strategies (provided this enters the shot budget or ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    goodness

    Ranking — unreliability As a result of the calibration, we want to assign a “goodness” value to each QPU considered, so that the production stage can be guided by it. The specific metric can also depend on different factors, but it should reflect the discrepancy between the results of the QPUs on the set of benchmarking circuits and the exact output distr...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Furthermore, the results of the calibration stage, if available, can be integrated into the analysis as expected prior accuracy provided by each QPU

    Production — prior split weights For this policy, the same aspects mentioned in II C 1 can be considered. Furthermore, the results of the calibration stage, if available, can be integrated into the analysis as expected prior accuracy provided by each QPU. We reason here in terms of prior split “weights” because the specific shot allocation might change de...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Production — split strategies In the single iteration version of the production stage, this step is a trivial application of the prior split weights step mentioned above applied to the total number of shots. In the case where more iterations of the production stage loop are needed, different shot allocations might be involved based on an update of the pri...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Production — executions The same considerations done during calibration executions apply here

    work page

  8. [8]

    Production — merge strategies In this step, after gathering all counts obtained from the executions on each QPUs, one has to merge the results. As for the split strategies discussed above, one can take into consideration different factors involved, but many, such as shot cost or queue time should not play a role, since the data is already assumed to be fu...

    work page

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Production — update split This step is required in the case of a schedule with more than a single iteration since it involves the updating of both the number of shots to split and the prior split weights which would be used as improved collective information at the beginning o...

  2. [10]

    Production — stopping criterion In the cases when one decides to perform more than once the steps in the production stage, different choices of the stopping criterion might be preferred. For example, a straightforward stopping policy might just be the depletion of the total sh...

  3. [11]

    These distances can then be used as unreliability parameter to be associated with each QPU

    Weighted average square Hellinger distance Using the distance metric discussed in the previous section, we can estimate the difference between the relative counts for the dataset D(m) and the ideal target distribution p(ideal) x known at calibration stage, where the bias and a...

  4. [12]

    split-shot

    Mean Integrated Square Error Let us consider a single-circuit benchmark with ideal distribution p(ideal) x , and collection of M QPUs, with distribu- tion p(m) x , sampled with a certain number of shots nm, depending on the split policy and compactly denoted by the “split-shot...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Christian Kraglund Andersen, Ants Remm, Stefania Lazar, Sebastian Krinner, Nathan Lacroix, Graham J Norris, Mihai Gabureac, Christopher Eichler, and Andreas Wallraff. 2020. Repeated quantum error detection in a surface code. Nature Physics 16, 8 (2020), 875–880

    2020

  6. [14]

    Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fernando G

    Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C. Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fernando G. S. L. Brandao, David A. Buell, Brian Burkett, Yu Chen, Zijun Chen, Ben Chiaro, Roberto Collins, William Courtney, Andrew Dunsworth, Edward Farhi, Brooks F...

    2019

  7. [15]

    Thomas Ayral, Fran¸ cois-Marie Le R´ egent, Zain Saleem, Yuri Alexeev, and Martin Suchara. 2020. Quantum divide and compute: Hardware demonstrations and noisy simulations. In 2020 IEEE Computer Society Annual Symposium on VLSI (ISVLSI). IEEE, 138–140

    2020

  8. [16]

    Thomas Ayral, Fran¸ cois-Marie Le R´ egent, Zain Saleem, Yuri Alexeev, and Martin Suchara. 2021. Quantum divide and compute: exploring the effect of different noise sources. SN Computer Science 2, 3 (2021), 132

    2021

  9. [17]

    Kishor Bharti, Alba Cervera-Lierta, Thi Ha Kyaw, Tobias Haug, Sumner Alperin-Lea, Abhinav Anand, Matthias Degroote, Hermanni Heimonen, Jakob S Kottmann, Tim Menke, et al. 2022. Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms. Reviews of Modern Physics 94, 1 (2022), 015004

    2022

  10. [18]

    Anil Bhattacharyya. 1943. On a measure of divergence between two statistical populations defined by their probability distribution. Bulletin of the Calcutta Mathematical Society 35 (1943), 99–110

    1943

  11. [19]

    Giuseppe Bisicchia, Giuseppe Clemente, Jose Garcia-Alonso, Juan Manuel Murillo, Massimo D’Elia, and Antonio Brogi

  12. [20]

    Jeff Heckey, Shruti Patil, Ali JavadiAbhari, Adam Holmes, Daniel Kudrow, Kenneth R Brown, Diana Franklin, Frederic T Chong, and Margaret Martonosi. 2015. Compiler management of communication and parallelism for quantum computa- tion. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Internation...

    2015

  13. [21]

    Giuseppe Bisicchia, Jos´ e Garc ´ ıa-Alonso, Juan M Murillo, and Antonio Brogi. 2023. Dispatching Shots Among Multiple Quantum Computers: An Architectural Proposal. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Vol. 2. IEEE, 195–198

    2023

  14. [22]

    Murillo, and Antonio Brogi

    Giuseppe Bisicchia, Jose Garc ´ ıa-Alonso, Juan M. Murillo, and Antonio Brogi. 2023. Distributing Quantum Computations, by Shots. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 14419 LNCS (20...

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    Zhenyu Cai, Ryan Babbush, Simon C Benjamin, Suguru Endo, William J Huggins, Ying Li, Jarrod R McClean, and Thomas E O’Brien. 2023. Quantum error mitigation. Reviews of Modern Physics 95, 4 (2023), 045005

    2023

  16. [24]

    Cameron and P.K

    A.C. Cameron and P.K. Trivedi. 2005. Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications . Cambridge University Press. https://books.google.it/books?id=TdlKAgAAQBAJ

    2005

  17. [25]

    Marco Cerezo et al. 2021. Variational quantum algorithms. Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 9 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Turbasu Chatterjee, Arnav Das, Shah Ishmam Mohtashim, Amit Saha, and Amlan Chakrabarti. 2022. Qurzon: A prototype for a divide and conquer-based quantum compiler for distributed quantum systems. SN Computer Science 3, 4 (2022), 323

    2022

  19. [27]

    Ivan H Deutsch. 2020. Harnessing the power of the second quantum revolution. PRX Quantum 1, 2 (2020), 020101

    2020

  20. [28]

    Suguru Endo, Simon C Benjamin, and Ying Li. 2018. Practical quantum error mitigation for near-future applications. Physical Review X 8, 3 (2018), 031027

    2018

  21. [29]

    Suguru Endo, Zhenyu Cai, Simon C Benjamin, and Xiao Yuan. 2021. Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms and quantum error mitigation. Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 90, 3 (2021), 032001

    2021

  22. [30]

    Jose Garcia-Alonso, Javier Rojo, David Valencia, Enrique Moguel, Javier Berrocal, and Juan Manuel Murillo. 2021. Quantum software as a service through a quantum API gateway. IEEE Internet Computing 26, 1 (2021), 34–41

    2021

  23. [31]

    Tudor Giurgica-Tiron, Yousef Hindy, Ryan LaRose, Andrea Mari, and William J Zeng. 2020. Digital zero noise extrap- olation for quantum error mitigation. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE). IEEE, 306–316

    2020

  24. [32]

    Michele Grossi et al. 2021. A Serverless Cloud Integration For Quantum Computing. (2021). arXiv:2107.02007 19

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Tianyi Peng, Aram W Harrow, Maris Ozols, and Xiaodi Wu. 2020. Simulating large quantum circuits on a small quantum computer. Physical review letters 125, 15 (2020), 150504

    2020

  26. [34]

    Hellinger

    E. Hellinger. 1909. Neue Begr¨ undung der Theorie quadratischer Formen von unendlichvielen Ver¨ anderlichen.Journal f¨ ur die reine und angewandte Mathematik 1909, 136 (1909), 210–271. https://doi.org/doi:10.1515/crll.1909.136.210

    1909 doi

  27. [35]

    Abhinav Kandala, Kristan Temme, Antonio D C´ orcoles, Antonio Mezzacapo, Jerry M Chow, and Jay M Gambetta. 2019. Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor. Nature 567, 7749 (2019), 491–495

    2019

  28. [36]

    Youngseok Kim, Andrew Eddins, Sajant Anand, Ken Xuan Wei, Ewout van den Berg, Sami Rosenblatt, Hasan Nayfeh, Yantao Wu, Michael Zaletel, Kristan Temme, and Abhinav Kandala. 2023. Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance. Nature 618, 7965 (2023), 500–505

    2023

  29. [37]

    Emanuel Knill. 2005. Quantum computing with realistically noisy devices. Nature 434, 7029 (2005), 39–44

    2005

  30. [38]

    Emanuel Knill and Raymond Laflamme. 1997. Theory of quantum error-correcting codes. Physical Review A 55, 2 (1997), 900

    1997

  31. [39]

    Thaddeus D Ladd, Fedor Jelezko, Raymond Laflamme, Yasunobu Nakamura, Christopher Monroe, and Jeremy Lloyd O’Brien. 2010. Quantum computers. nature 464, 7285 (2010), 45–53

    2010

  32. [40]

    Jonathan Wei Zhong Lau, Kian Hwee Lim, Harshank Shrotriya, and Leong Chuan Kwek. 2022. NISQ computing: where are we and where do we go? AAPPS bulletin 32, 1 (2022), 27

    2022

  33. [41]

    Gushu Li, Yufei Ding, and Yuan Xie. 2019. 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. 1001–1014

    2019

  34. [42]

    Daniel A Lidar and Todd A Brun. 2013. Quantum error correction. Cambridge university press

    2013

  35. [43]

    Angus Lowe et al. 2023. Fast quantum circuit cutting with randomized measurements. Quantum 7 (2023), 934

    2023

  36. [44]

    Prakash Murali, Jonathan M Baker, Ali Javadi-Abhari, Frederic T Chong, and Margaret Martonosi. 2019. Noise-adaptive compiler mappings for noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers. In Proceedings of the twenty-fourth international conference on architectural support for progr...

    2019

  37. [45]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. 2012. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information

    2012

  38. [46]

    Peter W Shor. 1995. Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory. Physical review A 52, 4 (1995), R2493

    1995

  39. [47]

    Michael A Perlin, Zain H Saleem, Martin Suchara, and James C Osborn. 2021. Quantum circuit cutting with maximum- likelihood tomography. npj Quantum Information 7, 1 (2021), 64

    2021

  40. [48]

    John Preskill. 2018. Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum 2 (2018), 79

    2018

  41. [49]

    Timothy Proctor, Kenneth Rudinger, Kevin Young, Erik Nielsen, and Robin Blume-Kohout. 2022. Measuring the capa- bilities of quantum computers. Nature Physics 18, 1 (2022), 75–79

    2022

  42. [50]

    Nils Quetschlich et al. 2022. Predicting Good Quantum Circuit Compilation Options. CoRR abs/2210.08027 (2022). arXiv:2210.08027

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Nils Quetschlich, Lukas Burgholzer, and Robert Wille. 2023. MQT Bench: Benchmarking Software and Design Automation Tools for Quantum Computing. Quantum (2023). MQT Bench is available at https://www.cda.cit.tum.de/mqtbench/

    2023

  44. [52]

    Gokul Subramanian Ravi et al. 2021. Adaptive job and resource management for the growing quantum cloud. In IEEE QCE. 301–312

    2021

  45. [53]

    Marie Salm et al. 2021. Automating the Comparison of Quantum Compilers for Quantum Circuits. In CCIS, Vol. 1429. 64–80

    2021

  46. [54]

    Marie Salm et al. 2022. Optimizing the Prioritization of Compiled Quantum Circuits by Machine Learning Approaches. In CCIS, Vol. 1603. 161–181

    2022

  47. [55]

    Marie Salm et al. 2022. Prioritization of Compiled Quantum Circuits for Different Quantum Computers. In IEEE SANER. 1258–1265

    2022

  48. [56]

    Marie Salm et al. 2023. How to Select Quantum Compilers and Quantum Computers Before Compilation. In CLOSER. 172–183

    2023

  49. [57]

    Marie Salm, Johanna Barzen, Uwe Breitenb¨ ucher, Frank Leymann, Benjamin Weder, and Karoline Wild. 2020. The NISQ analyzer: automating the selection of quantum computers for quantum algorithms. In Symposium and Summer School on Service-Oriented Computing. Springer, 66–85

    2020

  50. [58]

    Peter W Shor. 1994. Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring. In Proceedings 35th annual symposium on foundations of computer science . 124–134

    1994

  51. [60]

    Peter W Shor. 1996. Fault-tolerant quantum computation. In Proceedings of 37th conference on foundations of computer science. 56–65

    1996

  52. [61]

    Wei Tang, Teague Tomesh, Martin Suchara, Jeffrey Larson, and Margaret Martonosi. 2021. Cutqc: using small quantum computers for large quantum circuit evaluations. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM International conference on architectural support for programming languages and ope...

    2021

  53. [62]

    Swamit S Tannu and Moinuddin Qureshi. 2019. Ensemble of diverse mappings: Improving reliability of quantum com- puters by orchestrating dissimilar mistakes. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture. 253–265. 20

    2019

  54. [63]

    Swamit S Tannu and Moinuddin K Qureshi. 2019. Not all qubits are created equal: A case for variability-aware policies for NISQ-era quantum computers. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating S...

    2019

  55. [64]

    Kristan Temme, Sergey Bravyi, and Jay M Gambetta. 2017. Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits. Physical review letters 119, 18 (2017), 180509

    2017

  56. [65]

    Barbara M Terhal. 2015. Quantum error correction for quantum memories. Reviews of Modern Physics 87, 2 (2015), 307

    2015

  57. [66]

    Xianjing Zhou, Xinhao Li, Qianfan Chen, Gerwin Koolstra, Ge Yang, Brennan Dizdar, Yizhong Huang, Christopher S Wang, Xu Han, Xufeng Zhang, et al. 2024. Electron charge qubit with 0.1 millisecond coherence time. Nature Physics 20, 1 (2024), 116–122

    2024

  58. [67]

    Linghua Zhu, Senwei Liang, Chao Yang, and Xiaosong Li. 2024. Optimizing shot assignment in variational quantum eigensolver measurement. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 20, 6 (2024), 2390–2403. Appendix A: Optimal distributions and weights In this Section we show som...

    2024

  59. [68]

    (3) becomes D2 Hell(¯p; p(m), w(m)) = 1 − M −1X m=0 w(m) X x q ¯pxp(m) x

    Optimal W eighted Square Hellinger Distance In the case of dH being the Hellinger distance and denoting by ( m) the quantity associated to the m-th QPU in the set of QPUs considered, the expression in Eq. (3) becomes D2 Hell(¯p; p(m), w(m)) = 1 − M −1X m=0 w(m) X x q ¯pxp(m) x...

  60. [69]

    Optimal Mean Integrated Square Error It is useful to formally decompose the MISE in Eq. (5) as a sum of two contributions MISE( ⃗ w; ⃗ n) = V AR(⃗ w; ⃗ n) + BIAS2( ⃗ w), (A3) defined as V AR(⃗ w; ⃗ n) ≡ X x ED=∪mD(m) h (ˆp( ⃗ w;⃗ n) x [D] − p( ⃗ w) x ) 2i , (A4) BIAS2( ⃗ w) ≡ ...

  61. [2024]

    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14056270

    Distributing Quantum Computations, Shot-wise - Dataset . https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14056270

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.