Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 3 cited by

S-SYNC: Shuttle and Swap Co-Optimization in Quantum Charge-Coupled Devices

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read S-SYNC claims that co-optimizing shuttling and SWAPs as generic swaps on a static weighted QCCD graph cuts shuttle counts by 3.69x and raises average success rate by 1.73x.

desk verdict S-SYNC's space-node trick is a real contribution, but the success-rate numbers don't survive contact with the paper's own fidelity model. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01316 v1 pith:JKIY7JRY submitted 2025-05-02 quant-ph

Chenghong Zhu , Xian Wu , Jingbo Wang , Xin Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Lx
keywords S-SYNCquantumcharge-coupleddevicetrapped-ioncomputingqubitmappingshuttlingschedulingSWAPoptimizationQCCDtopologysuccessrate
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

The paper tries to establish that a compiler for quantum-charge-coupled-device (QCCD) trapped-ion computers should schedule ion shuttling and SWAP gates together, not separately, because the two operations are physically coupled: moving an ion chain almost always forces reordering, and reordering costs SWAPs. Its proposal, S-SYNC, rewrites the QCCD device as a weighted static graph that includes empty 'space nodes', so every physical operation--splitting, merging, moving ions between traps, swapping qubits--becomes one unified node interchange that the paper calls a generic swap. On this graph the scheduler searches heuristically for low-cost generic swaps until all two-qubit gates are executable, and this co-optimization is reported to reduce the number of shuttles by 3.69x on average and improve application success rate by 1.73x on average across QFT, adder, BV, QAOA, and alternating-layer-ansatz benchmarks on linear, grid, and fully connected QCCD topologies. A reader should care because shuttling is the dominant error and time cost in scaling trapped-ion devices; if this reduction transfers to hardware, near-term QCCD devices can run larger algorithms, and the static-topology formulation lets a large toolbox of qubit-routing heuristics be reused for trapped-ion hardware.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is S-SYNC's static weighted graph with space nodes, together with the generic swap it defines. A space node is simply a free slot in a trap that can hold one ion; the graph has an edge between any two nodes whose contents can be interchanged, with weights such as $w_1 = 0.001$ for an intra-trap move and $w_2, w_3, w_4$ scaling with distance and junction crossings. Because every QCCD operation--splitting, merging, shuttling between traps, and SWAP-based reordering--is represented as one generic swap (interchange of two nodes), the topology graph stays fixed through the whole schedule, which removes the dynamic-topology problem that prevented standard routing algorithms from being applied. The scheduler's heuristic $H(\mathit{swap})$ evaluates each candidate generic swap by the shortest weighted path needed to bring the two qubits of a frontier gate together, plus a penalty for traps that contain no free space, and a decay term that discourages repeatedly moving the same qubits; the lowest-scoring move is applied and the search repeats until the circuit's dependency graph is exhausted.

What would settle it

Measure success rates of S-SYNC-scheduled circuits on a real QCCD device (or on a simulator whose noise model is fitted to direct heating measurements) and compare against the linear-model predictions. If the success-rate advantage over the baselines shrinks or reverses once heating is measured rather than assumed proportional to operation time and motional quanta, the central success-rate claim is falsified. A sharper experiment: repeatedly shuttle ions through the same junction and record gate fidelity as a function of prior shuttle count; superlinear degradation would violate the model's additive per-operation cost assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the QCCD scheduling problem can be made static: represent every occupied or empty trap slot as a node of a weighted connectivity graph, with edge weights expressing whether swapping two nodes costs a cheap intra-trap SWAP, a costly shuttle, or a junction crossing. A shuttle physically exchanges a qubit with an empty space, a SWAP exchanges two qubits, and repositioning space within a trap is also a node interchange, so all operations share one form. The paper names this unified operation a generic swap. On top of this representation S-SYNC builds a DAG-aware greedy scheduler: whenever no ready gate can be executed, it scores every candidate generic swap with $H(\mathit{swap}) = \min_g \{ \mathit{decay}(g) \cdot \mathit{score}(g) \} + w(\mathit{swap})$, where score combines the weighted path between the two qubits of the most urgent gate and a penalty for traps with no free space, then applies the lowest-scoring move. The paper argues this co-optimization, rather than minimizing shuttles or SWAPs in isolation, is what yields the reported 3.69x shuttle reduction and 1.73x success-rate improvement over the prior compiler baselines, and it uses the same machinery to draw architectural conclusions: grid-type topologies generally beat linear ones, and peak success rates occur at roughly 10-15 qubits per trap.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's central success-rate improvement rests on a linear fidelity model, $F = 1 - \Gamma\tau - A(2\bar{n}+1)$, with heating constants $k_1=0.1$ and $k_2=0.01$ taken from a prior trapped-ion study; if real QCCD noise grows nonlinearly with chain size or depends on the history of previous shuttles, the 1.73x success-rate claim and the topology/capacity guidance would not survive contact with hardware, even if the shuttle-count reductions themselves are real.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Prior superconducting-style qubit-routing and SWAP-insertion heuristics become applicable to QCCD, because the static graph with space nodes keeps the connectivity fixed throughout scheduling.
  • The reported reductions mean near-term QCCD applications spend fewer operations on movement, directly cutting the main source of heating-induced error and execution-time overhead in trapped-ion systems.
  • The topology study implies device designers can expect grid- or ring-style QCCD layouts to outperform linear layouts for most applications, and that trap capacities around 10-15 ions are the sweet spot for success rate.
  • Initial mapping choices trade shuttles against execution time: gathering mapping minimizes shuttles but can reduce success rate under frequency-modulated gates, since longer ion chains make those gates slower.
  • S-SYNC comes close to the idealized 'perfect SWAP' bound but retains a gap to 'perfect shuttle', so further gains are available specifically in shuttle scheduling rather than in SWAP reduction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The generic-swap abstraction suggests QCCD scheduling can be recast as token swapping on a graph where empty vertices are mobile, which would let exact and near-exact routing methods from the circuit-mapping literature be tested against S-SYNC's greedy search; the paper does not explore this connection.
  • Because the success-rate model assumes heating adds a fixed number of motional quanta per split/merge/shuttle, a direct measurement of how gate fidelity degrades with cumulative shuttling through junctions would tell whether the 1.73x improvement is optimistic, pessimistic, or roughly right under real QCCD noise.
  • The same static-graph formulation could extend to mixed-species or memory-zone QCCD designs where some ions are immobile, by adding constraints that lock certain nodes from interchange; this is a natural next step not treated in the paper.
  • The paper's benchmark evidence suggests that the best compiler choices depend on gate implementation (AM2 for short-range gates, FM/PM for long-range), so hardware vendors reporting gate times and heating rates could let S-SYNC-style compilers tune their weights automatically; such auto-tuning is not in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper introduces S-SYNC, a compiler for QCCD trapped-ion devices that represents the device as a static weighted graph containing both qubit nodes and empty space nodes. It defines a unified 'generic swap' operation covering SWAP gates, intra-trap reordering, and shuttling, and schedules circuits with a greedy heuristic using a distance-based cost function plus penalties for blocked traps and repeated moves. The authors evaluate S-SYNC on benchmarks of 24-66 qubits against the Murali et al. and Dai et al. compilers across several QCCD topologies, reporting a 3.69x average reduction in shuttle count and a 1.73x average improvement in success rate. They also analyze the effect of topology, trap capacity, gate implementation choices, initial mappings, and hyperparameters, and compare compilation time and optimality against idealized scenarios.

Significance. If the results hold, S-SYNC contributes a useful abstraction for QCCD compilation: treating space nodes as first-class graph vertices solves the previously noted problem that the QCCD topology changes after each shuttle, and the generic-swap formulation cleanly unifies SWAP and shuttling costs. The shuttle-count and SWAP-count reductions in Figs. 8-9 are plausible and would be valuable even without the fidelity model. However, the headline success-rate improvement of 1.73x and the topology and capacity guidance in Figs. 10-12 rest entirely on Eq. (4), which is not specified consistently enough to reproduce the reported numbers. The paper does not release code and contains no machine-checked proofs, so the quantitative claims currently depend on an unverified and partially described noise model. The central scheduling mechanism itself is described completely enough to be reimplemented, and the sensitivity analysis for the heuristic weights is a positive feature.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eq. (4)] The success-rate model is not internally consistent as written. The text sets Γ = 1 while Table 1 lists split/merge times of 80 μs, junction times of 40+20n μs, and FM gate times of hundreds of microseconds. If τ in Eq. (4) is in microseconds, a single split contributes Γτ = 80, so the per-gate fidelity is at most 1 - 80 - A(2n̄+1) ≤ -79, and the product over the circuit would be zero or negative. This contradicts the positive success rates in Fig. 10 and makes the logarithmic QFT_64 panel impossible. If τ is intended to be in seconds, or if Γ has nontrivial units, that normalization is never stated. Since the 1.73x success-rate claim and Figs. 10-12 all depend on Eq. (4), the reported success-rate results are unsupported as written.
  2. [Section 4.1, Eq. (4)] The terms in Eq. (4) are not quantitatively defined. The text states that A ∝ N/ln(N) but gives no proportionality constant, and it does not specify how split, merge, and shuttle operations update n̄ through k1 and k2 or how n̄ is tracked across a circuit. Consequently, the success-rate simulator cannot be reconstructed from the manuscript alone. The authors should provide the complete model, including the value of A and the exact update rule for n̄, or release the simulator code, and then rerun Figs. 10-12.
  3. [Section 3.1 and Section 4.2] The threshold parameter in the static-topology rules is never assigned a value. Rules 1-4 all distinguish operations by whether W(u,v) is below or above the threshold, and the resulting shuttle and SWAP counts in Figs. 8-9 depend on this distinction. Section 4.2 gives inner weight 0.001, shuttle segment weight 1, and junction multipliers, but no threshold value. The reported counts are therefore not reproducible, and the threshold should be stated and preferably included in the sensitivity analysis.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 4.2 vs Section 5.5] The decay rate is set to δ = 0.0001 in Section 4.2 but to δ = 0.001 in Section 5.5; the correct value used for the main results should be stated consistently.
  2. [Section 4.2, Fig. 16] The text says that m = 2 is 'sufficient to achieve near-optimal results in most cases, as shown in Fig. 16,' but Fig. 16 compares S-SYNC against idealized perfect-shuttle and perfect-SWAP scenarios and does not sweep m. Please either add an m-sweep figure or correct the cross-reference.
  3. [Section 3.4, Eq. (3)] The intra-trap mapping score l(q_i) = -αE(q_i) + βI(q_i) uses parameters α and β, but no values are given in the experimental section. The STA-mapping curves in Fig. 12 cannot be reproduced without these values.
  4. [References [48] and [49]] References [48] and [49] are the same Murali et al. ISCA 2020 paper; the duplicate should be removed and the citation in Observation 3 should be fixed.
  5. [Fig. 10 caption] The y-axis for QFT_64 is logarithmic while the other panels are linear; this should be stated explicitly in the caption.
  6. [Abstract] The phrase 'significantly extend execution time' should be 'significantly extending execution time' or 'significantly extend execution times'.
  7. [Abstract and Section 5.1] The headline 3.69x average shuttle reduction is not directly derivable from the per-benchmark percentages reported in Section 5.1; a summary table with per-benchmark counts and the averaging procedure would allow the reader to verify the number.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: S-SYNC's reductions are benchmarked against external baselines under a shared external fidelity model, so the central claim is not equivalent to its inputs.

full rationale

The claimed reductions (3.69x shuttles, 1.73x success rate) are empirical comparisons between S-SYNC and the external compilers of Murali et al. [48] and Dai et al. [15] under a shared fidelity model. The heuristic weights (inner weight 0.001, shuttle weight 1, w(j+1), decay δ = 0.0001) are manually chosen inputs and are not fitted to the reported success rates; the sensitivity analysis in Fig. 14 shows the shuttle-count results are stable across a wide range of weight ratios, so the central shuttle-reduction claim is not forced by construction. The fidelity model in Eq. (4) with Γ=1 and the listed microsecond operation times would produce negative per-gate fidelities for any split/merge (1 − 80 = −79) and therefore cannot literally reproduce the positive success rates in Fig. 10 as written; this is an internal-consistency and correctness defect in the reported quantitative success-rate claim, not a circular dependency, because the model is external and applied identically to all schemes. The only self-citation, [82], appears in related work on single-trap shuttling and is not load-bearing for the paper's central result. No step in the derivation chain reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted input or imports a uniqueness claim from the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's performance numbers rest on a small set of hand-set graph weights, a borrowed linear noise model, and several underspecified scoring parameters (most notably α and β in Eq. 3). No new physical entities are introduced; generic-swap and space nodes are software abstractions. The sensitivity analysis in §5.5 explores some hyperparameters, but the default choices are not derived from independent data.

free parameters (8)
  • inner weight = 0.001
    Cost of swapping two adjacent nodes within a trap; hand-set in §4.2 to reflect that ion reordering is cheaper than shuttling.
  • shuttle segment weight = 1
    Base cost of moving an ion across a junction-free segment; hand-set in §4.2.
  • junction multiplier = w(j+1)
    Each traversed junction multiplies shuttle cost; hand-set to approximate ion heating from junction crossings (§4.2).
  • decay rate δ = 0.0001 (§4.2), 0.001 (§5.5)
    Penalty for reusing qubits in recent generic swaps; inconsistent values across sections; tuned via sensitivity analysis (§5.5).
  • α, β in intra-trap mapping = not specified
    Weights in Eq. (3) balancing intra-trap vs cross-trap interactions; no numerical values are given, blocking exact reproducibility.
  • path truncation m = 2
    Limits the path length in the score function to keep runtime manageable; justified empirically in Fig. 16.
  • look-ahead k = 8
    Number of DAG layers considered in intra-trap mapping (Eq. 3), set to 8 in simulation.
  • noise model constants Γ, k1, k2 = Γ=1, k1=0.1, k2=0.01
    Constants in the success-rate model Eq. (4), inherited from Murali et al. [48], not re-derived; the 1.73x success-rate claim is sensitive to them.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A two-qubit gate is applicable iff both qubits are in the same trap with edge weight below threshold (Section 3.1, rule 1).
    This defines the static topology abstraction and assumes intra-trap connectivity is free up to a threshold, which is an idealization of QCCD physics.
  • domain assumption Fidelity degradation is linear in accumulated time and motional energy: F = 1 - Γτ - A(2n̄+1) (Eq. 4).
    Borrowed from Murali et al. [48]; this linear model converts operation counts into success rates, and is the basis of the claimed 1.73x success-rate improvement.
  • domain assumption Shuttling through j junctions costs w(j+1) and ion reordering costs less than shuttling (Section 4.2).
    The relative weights encode hardware heating behavior; if real heating differs, the heuristic's choices change.
  • domain assumption Gate execution times for FM, PM, AM gates follow τFM(N)=max(13.33N-54,100), τPM(d)=5d+160, τAM1(d)=100d-22, τAM2(d)=38d+10 (Section 4.1).
    These formulas come from prior trapped-ion studies and are used for execution-time and success-rate estimates; they are not derived in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of S-SYNC: Shuttle and Swap Co-Optimization in Quantum Charge-Coupled Devices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JKIY7JRY

@misc{pith2026250501316,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: S-SYNC: Shuttle and Swap Co-Optimization in Quantum Charge-Coupled Devices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JKIY7JRY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01316}
}
read the original abstract

The Quantum Charge-Coupled Device (QCCD) architecture is a modular design to expand trapped-ion quantum computer that relies on the coherent shuttling of qubits across an array of segmented electrodes. Leveraging trapped ions for their long coherence times and high-fidelity quantum operations, QCCD technology represents a significant advancement toward practical, large-scale quantum processors. However, shuttling increases thermal motion and consistently necessitates qubit swaps, significantly extend execution time and negatively affect application success rates. In this paper, we introduce S-SYNC -- a compiler designed to co-optimize the number of shuttling and swapping operations. S-SYNC exploits the unique properties of QCCD and incorporates generic SWAP operations to efficiently manage shuttle and SWAP counts simultaneously. Building on the static topology formulation of QCCD, we develop scheduling heuristics to enhance overall performance. Our evaluations demonstrate that our approach reduces the shuttling number by 3.69x on average and improves the success rate of quantum applications by 1.73x on average. Moreover, we apply S-SYNC to gain insights into executing applications across various QCCD topologies and to compare the trade-offs between different initial mapping methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01316 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of this work. We propose S-SYNC with equipment of different initial mapping and searching frame￾work for optimizing the success rate of running quantum application in QCCD devices. termed ‘generic swap’, which combines the functions of SWAP and shuttle within QCCD devices. • Scalable Algorithm Design. Leverage the static topol￾ogy formulation of QCCD, we introduce a heuristic search algorithm based on gener… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A modular Quantum Charge Coupled Device (QCCD) consists of several traps, each of which is initialized with 7 qubits. These traps are interconnected with shuttle paths. In order to enable the implementation of a two-qubit gate between two traps, ions need to be split from one trap, moved, and then merged into another trap by traversing the shuttle path. qubit, which has two basis states, typically denoted as |0⟩ and… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of Observation 1 and 2. (Left) To apply a two-qubit gate on the two green qubits (with white space qubits omitted), a SWAP gate and a shuttle operation are used. (Right) The topology graph shows that, because each trap maintains full connectivity, the graph’s isomorphism is preserved after the initial SWAP insertion, indicating no topological changes. However, the shuttle operation modifies the topology… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of Observation 3. Red dots represent qubits, white dots denote spaces for incoming ions, and black dots indicate fixed positions for shuttling. In the scenario shown in (a), suppose a two-qubit gate must be applied to two qubits, but the path is obstructed…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A demonstration of creating a graph using a given QCCD. In (a), each dot stands for a unit space; a qubit is represented by a red dot, and a free space is denoted by a white dot. The corresponding graph of (a) is shown in (b), where the blue line indicates the potentia…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration of the gate scheduling on QCCD devices. Consider the scenario where a two-qubit gate is required to be applied between q0, q1 and q1, q2. The scheduling process entails aligning the qubits to ensure that corresponding qubits are positioned within the same …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: QCCD devices feature a variety of architectural designs, including linear-connected devices (L-series), grid-like devices (G-series), and fully-connected devices (S-series). Operations Time Move 5 𝜇s Split 80 𝜇s Merge 80 𝜇s Cross n-path junction 40 + 20 × 𝑛 𝜇s [PITH_F…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of shuttle counts with recent work by Murali et al. [48] and Dai et al. [15] (Lower the better). S-4 L-6 G-2x2G-2x3G-3x3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Number of SWAPs QFT_24 S-4 L-4 G-2x2G-2x3G-3x3 0 20 40 60 80 100 Adder_32 S-4 L-4 L-6 G-2x2G-2x3G-3x3 0 10 …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of SWAP gate counts with recent work by Murali et al. [48] and Dai et al. [15] (Lower the better). advanced devices, such as “SOL” and “APOLL”. In detail, we select configurations S-4, G-2×2, G-2×3, and G-3×3 with maximum capacities of 22, 22, 17, and 12 per…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: We also emphasize that some applications have a low [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Effects of communication topology and trap capacity on the fidelity of applications and their corresponding execution times. Experiments were conducted using 7 QCCD topologies to evaluate their performance across various applications, focusing on success rates and est…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Analysis of initial mapping effects. We use the 64-qubit Adder and 64-qubit QFT as examples on a G-2×3 topology. The results indicate that gathering mapping results in fewer shuttling operations compared to an even-divided mapping. However, due to the nature of FM gat…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Hyperparameter sensitivity analysis. (Left) Weight Analysis. r represents the ratio of shuttle weight to inner weight. (Right) Decay rate analysis. d represents the decay rate 𝛿. 5.5 Sensitivity Analysis of Hyperparameters To further analyze the impact of hyperparamet…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Compilation time varies with the size of applica￾tion. The compilation time is another key point in enabling ex￾ecuting large-scale applications [4]. We also choose G-2×2 topology with trap capacity 20 following the previous analy￾sis. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful…

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. Scalable Quantum Architecture Search via Landscape Analysis

    quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A zero-shot quantum architecture search ranks circuits by relative landscape fluctuation computed with Clifford sampling, then prunes redundant gates, reaching 50-qubit VQE simulations with fewer gates.

  2. Quantum Compiler Design for Qubit Mapping and Routing: A Cross-Architectural Survey of Superconducting, Trapped-Ion, and Neutral Atom Systems

    quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A cross-architectural survey that categorizes qubit mapping and routing compilers for superconducting, trapped-ion, and neutral atom quantum hardware.

  3. Interfacing Quantum Computing Systems with High-Performance Computing Systems: An Overview

    quant-ph 2025-09 conditional

    A broad literature review of architectures, software stacks, and challenges for integrating quantum processors into high-performance computing systems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    M Akhtar, F Bonus, FR Lebrun-Gallagher, NI Johnson, M Siegele- Brown, S Hong, SJ Hile, SA Kulmiya, S Weidt, and WK Hensinger

  2. [2]

    Medina Bandic, Carmen G Almudever, and Sebastian Feld. 2023. In- teraction graph-based characterization of quantum benchmarks for improving quantum circuit mapping techniques. Quantum Machine Intelligence 5, 2 (2023), 40

    2023

  3. [3]

    Ethan Bernstein and Umesh Vazirani. 1993. Quantum complexity theory. In Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing. 11–20

    1993

  4. [4]

    Michael E Beverland, Prakash Murali, Matthias Troyer, Krysta M Svore, Torsten Hoefler, Vadym Kliuchnikov, Guang Hao Low, Mathias Soeken, Aarthi Sundaram, and Alexander Vaschillo. 2022. Assessing requirements to scale to practical quantum advantage (2022). arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.07629 (2022)

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    RB Blakestad, C Ospelkaus, AP VanDevender, JM Amini, Joseph Brit- ton, Dietrich Leibfried, and David J Wineland. 2009. High-fidelity transport of trapped-ion qubits through an X-junction trap array. Physi- cal review letters 102, 15 (2009), 153002

    2009

  6. [6]

    Dolev Bluvstein, Simon J Evered, Alexandra A Geim, Sophie H Li, Hengyun Zhou, Tom Manovitz, Sepehr Ebadi, Madelyn Cain, Marcin Kalinowski, Dominik Hangleiter, et al. 2023. Logical quantum proces- sor based on reconfigurable atom arrays. Nature (2023), 1–3

    2023

  7. [7]

    Kenneth R Brown, John Chiaverini, Jeremy M Sage, and Hartmut Häffner. 2021. Materials challenges for trapped-ion quantum comput- ers. Nature Reviews Materials 6, 10 (2021), 892–905

    2021

  8. [8]

    Colin D Bruzewicz, Robert McConnell, John Chiaverini, and Jeremy M Sage. 2016. Scalable loading of a two-dimensional trapped-ion array. Nature communications 7, 1 (2016), 13005

    2016

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    Yudong Cao, Jhonathan Romero, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. 2018. Po- tential of quantum computing for drug discovery. IBM Journal of Research and Development 62, 6 (2018), 6–1

    2018

  2. [10]

    Cheng Chu and Zhenxiao Fu. 2024. TITAN: A Distributed Large-Scale Trapped-Ion NISQ Computer. https://synthical. com/article/bd37f703-1e4f-41e1-ab57-51a5000d6d81 . arXiv:2402.11021 [cs.ET]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Juan I Cirac and Peter Zoller. 1995. Quantum computations with cold trapped ions. Physical review letters 74, 20 (1995), 4091

    1995

  4. [12]

    Qiskit contributors. 2023. Qiskit: An open-source framework for quan- tum computing. https://zenodo.org/records/8190968

    2023

  5. [13]

    Steven A Cuccaro, Thomas G Draper, Samuel A Kutin, and David Petrie Moulton. 2004. A new quantum ripple-carry addition circuit. arXiv preprint quant-ph/0410184 (2004)

    2004 arXiv

  6. [14]

    MP da Silva, C Ryan-Anderson, JM Bello-Rivas, A Chernoguzov, JM Dreiling, C Foltz, JP Gaebler, TM Gatterman, D Hayes, N Hewitt, et al

  7. [15]

    Weining Dai, Kevin A Brown, and Thomas G Robertazzi. 2024. Ad- vanced Shuttle Strategies for Parallel QCCD Architectures. IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Simon J Devitt, William J Munro, and Kae Nemoto. 2013. Quantum error correction for beginners. Reports on Progress in Physics 76, 7 (2013), 076001

    2013

  9. [17]

    Vedran Dunjko and Hans J Briegel. 2018. Machine learning & artifi- cial intelligence in the quantum domain: a review of recent progress. Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 7 (2018), 074001. 14 S-SYNC: Shuttle and Swap Co-Optimization in Quantum Charge-Coupled Devices

    2018

  10. [18]

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. 2014. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    John P Gaebler, Ting Rei Tan, Yiheng Lin, Y Wan, Ryan Bowler, Adam C Keith, Scott Glancy, Kevin Coakley, Emanuel Knill, Dietrich Leibfried, et al. 2016. High-fidelity universal gate set for be 9+ ion qubits. Physical review letters 117, 6 (2016), 060505

    2016

  12. [20]

    Google. 2023. Cirq. https://github.com/quantumlib/Cirq

    2023

  13. [21]

    M Gutiérrez, M Müller, and Alejandro Bermúdez. 2019. Transversality and lattice surgery: Exploring realistic routes toward coupled logical qubits with trapped-ion quantum processors. Physical Review A 99, 2 (2019), 022330

    2019

  14. [22]

    Hartmut Häffner, Christian F Roos, and Rainer Blatt. 2008. Quantum computing with trapped ions. Physics reports 469, 4 (2008), 155–203

    2008

  15. [23]

    TP Harty, DTC Allcock, CJ Ballance, L Guidoni, HA Janacek, NM Linke, DN Stacey, and DM Lucas. 2014. High-fidelity preparation, gates, memory, and readout of a trapped-ion quantum bit. Physical review letters 113, 22 (2014), 220501

    2014

  16. [24]

    Zichang He, Ruslan Shaydulin, Shouvanik Chakrabarti, Dylan Herman, Changhao Li, Yue Sun, and Marco Pistoia. 2023. Alignment between initial state and mixer improves QAOA performance for constrained optimization. npj Quantum Information 9, 1 (2023), 121

    2023

  17. [25]

    Leanghok Hour, Sovanmonynuth Heng, Myeongseong Go, and Young- sun Han. 2024. Improving zero-noise extrapolation for quantum-gate error mitigation using a noise-aware folding method. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12495 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Mohsin Iqbal, Nathanan Tantivasadakarn, Ruben Verresen, Sara L Campbell, Joan M Dreiling, Caroline Figgatt, John P Gaebler, Jacob Johansen, Michael Mills, Steven A Moses, et al. 2024. Non-Abelian topological order and anyons on a trapped-ion processor. Nature 626, 7999 (2024), 505–511

    2024

  19. [27]

    M Ivory, WJ Setzer, N Karl, H McGuinness, C DeRose, M Blain, D Stick, M Gehl, and LP Parazzoli. 2021. Integrated optical addressing of a trapped ytterbium ion. Physical Review X 11, 4 (2021), 041033

    2021

  20. [28]

    Chong, and Margaret Martonosi

    Ali JavadiAbhari, Shruti Patil, Daniel Kudrow, Jeff Heckey, Alexey Lvov, Frederic T. Chong, and Margaret Martonosi. 2014. ScaffCC: a framework for compilation and analysis of quantum computing pro- grams. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Computing Frontiers (Caglia...

    2014

  21. [29]

    H Kaufmann, T Ruster, Christian Tomás Schmiegelow, Marcelo Ale- jandro Luda, V Kaushal, J Schulz, D V on Lindenfels, F Schmidt-Kaler, and UG Poschinger. 2017. Scalable creation of long-lived multipartite entanglement. Physical review letters 119, 15 (2017), 150503

    2017

  22. [30]

    David Kielpinski, Chris Monroe, and David J Wineland. 2002. Archi- tecture for a large-scale ion-trap quantum computer. Nature 417, 6890 (2002), 709–711

    2002

  23. [31]

    Alexei Yu Kitaev, Alexander Shen, and Mikhail N Vyalyi. 2002. Clas- sical and quantum computation. Number 47. American Mathematical Soc

    2002

  24. [32]

    Emanuel Knill, Raymond Laflamme, and Gerald J Milburn. 2001. A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics. nature 409, 6816 (2001), 46–52

    2001

  25. [33]

    Kevin A Landsman, Yukai Wu, Pak Hong Leung, Daiwei Zhu, Nor- bert M Linke, Kenneth R Brown, Luming Duan, and Christopher Mon- roe. 2019. Two-qubit entangling gates within arbitrarily long chains of trapped ions. Physical Review A 100, 2 (2019), 022332

    2019

  26. [34]

    Lingling Lao, Hans Van Someren, Imran Ashraf, and Carmen G Al- mudever. 2021. Timing and resource-aware mapping of quantum cir- cuits to superconducting processors. IEEE Transactions on Computer- Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems41, 2 (2021), 359–371

    2021

  27. [35]

    Bjoern Lekitsch, Sebastian Weidt, Austin G Fowler, Klaus Mølmer, Simon J Devitt, Christof Wunderlich, and Winfried K Hensinger. 2017. Blueprint for a microwave trapped ion quantum computer. Science Advances 3, 2 (2017), e1601540

    2017

  28. [36]

    Pak Hong Leung and Kenneth R Brown. 2018. Entangling an arbitrary pair of qubits in a long ion crystal. Physical Review A 98, 3 (2018), 032318

    2018

  29. [37]

    Pak Hong Leung, Kevin A Landsman, Caroline Figgatt, Norbert M Linke, Christopher Monroe, and Kenneth R Brown. 2018. Robust 2- qubit gates in a linear ion crystal using a frequency-modulated driving force. Physical review letters 120, 2 (2018), 020501

    2018

  30. [38]

    Gushu Li, Yufei Ding, and Yuan Xie. 2019. Tackling the qubit map- ping 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

  31. [39]

    Joseph X Lin, Eric R Anschuetz, and Aram W Harrow. 2021. Using spectral graph theory to map qubits onto connectivity-limited devices. ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing 2, 1 (2021), 1–30

    2021

  32. [40]

    Wan-Hsuan Lin, Jason Kimko, Bochen Tan, Nikolaj Bjørner, and Jason Cong. 2023. Scalable optimal layout synthesis for NISQ quantum processors. In 2023 60th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC). IEEE, 1–6

    2023

  33. [41]

    Mikhail D Lukin, Michael Fleischhauer, Robin Cote, LuMing Duan, Dieter Jaksch, J Ignacio Cirac, and Peter Zoller. 2001. Dipole blockade and quantum information processing in mesoscopic atomic ensembles. Physical review letters 87, 3 (2001), 037901

    2001

  34. [42]

    M Malinowski, DTC Allcock, and CJ Ballance. 2023. How to wire a 1000-qubit trapped ion quantum computer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12773 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Alistair R Milne, Claire L Edmunds, Cornelius Hempel, Federico Roy, Sandeep Mavadia, and Michael J Biercuk. 2020. Phase-modulated entangling gates robust to static and time-varying errors. Physical Review Applied 13, 2 (2020), 024022

    2020

  36. [44]

    Abtin Molavi, Amanda Xu, Martin Diges, Lauren Pick, Swamit Tannu, and Aws Albarghouthi. 2022. Qubit mapping and routing via MaxSAT. In 2022 55th IEEE/ACM international symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO). IEEE, 1078–1091

    2022

  37. [45]

    Christopher Monroe and Jungsang Kim. 2013. Scaling the ion trap quantum processor. Science 339, 6124 (2013), 1164–1169

    2013

  38. [46]

    Steven A Moses, Charles H Baldwin, Michael S Allman, R Ancona, L Ascarrunz, C Barnes, J Bartolotta, B Bjork, P Blanchard, M Bohn, et al

  39. [47]

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

    2019

  40. [49]

    Physical Review X 13, 4 (2023), 041052

    A race-track trapped-ion quantum processor. Physical Review X 13, 4 (2023), 041052

    2023

  41. [50]

    Prakash Murali, Dripto M Debroy, Kenneth R Brown, and Margaret Martonosi. 2022. Toward systematic architectural design of near-term trapped ion quantum computers. Commun. ACM 65, 3 (2022), 101– 109

    2022

  42. [51]

    Prakash Murali, Norbert M Linke, Margaret Martonosi, Ali Javadi Abhari, Nhung Hong Nguyen, and Cinthia Huerta Alderete. 2020. Ar- chitecting noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers: A real-system study. IEEE Micro 40, 3 (2020), 73–80

    2020

  43. [52]

    Prakash Murali, Dripto M Debroy, Kenneth R Brown, and Margaret Martonosi. 2020. Architecting noisy intermediate-scale trapped ion quantum computers. In 2020 ACM/IEEE 47th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA). IEEE, 529–542

    2020

  44. [53]

    Kouhei Nakaji and Naoki Yamamoto. 2021. Expressibility of the alternating layered ansatz for quantum computation. Quantum 5 (April 2021), 434. doi: 10.22331/q-2021-04-19-434

    2021 doi

  45. [54]

    Yasunobu Nakamura, Yu A Pashkin, and JS Tsai. 1999. Coherent control of macroscopic quantum states in a single-Cooper-pair box. nature 398, 6730 (1999), 786–788

    1999

  46. [55]

    AH Myerson, DJ Szwer, SC Webster, DTC Allcock, MJ Curtis, G Imreh, JA Sherman, DN Stacey, AM Steane, and DM Lucas. 2008. 15 Chenghong Zhu, Xian Wu, Jingbo Wang, and Xin Wang High-fidelity readout of trapped-ion qubits. Physical Review Letters 100, 20 (2008), 200502

    2008

  47. [56]

    Anabel Ovide, Daniele Cuomo, and Carmen G Almudever. 2024. Scal- ing and assigning resources on ion trap QCCD architectures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00225 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Evan Peters, Prasanth Shyamsundar, AC Li, and Gabriel Perdue. 2022. Noise-aware qubit assignment on NISQ hardware using simulated annealing and Loschmidt Echoes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.00445 10 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Román Orús, Samuel Mugel, and Enrique Lizaso. 2019. Quantum computing for finance: Overview and prospects. Reviews in Physics 4 (2019), 100028

    2019

  50. [59]

    Jarryd J Pla, Kuan Y Tan, Juan P Dehollain, Wee H Lim, John JL Morton, David N Jamieson, Andrew S Dzurak, and Andrea Morello

  51. [60]

    Lukas Postler, Sascha Heu 𝛽en, Ivan Pogorelov, Manuel Rispler, Thomas Feldker, Michael Meth, Christian D Marciniak, Roman Stricker, Martin Ringbauer, Rainer Blatt, et al. 2022. Demonstration of fault-tolerant universal quantum gate operations. Nature 605, 7911 (2022), 675–680

    2022

  52. [61]

    Juan M Pino, Jennifer M Dreiling, Caroline Figgatt, John P Gaebler, Steven A Moses, MS Allman, CH Baldwin, Michael Foss-Feig, D Hayes, K Mayer, et al. 2021. Demonstration of the trapped-ion quantum CCD computer architecture. Nature 592, 7853 (2021), 209–213

    2021

  53. [62]

    Quantinuum. 2024. Quantinuum Roadmap. https: //www.quantinuum.com/blog/quantinuum-accelerates-the- path-to-universal-fault-tolerant-quantum-computing-supports- microsofts-ai-and-quantum-powered-compute-platform-and- the-path-to-a-quantum-supercomputer

    2024

  54. [63]

    Christian F Roos. 2008. Ion trap quantum gates with amplitude- modulated laser beams. New Journal of Physics 10, 1 (2008), 013002

    2008

  55. [64]

    Abdullah Ash Saki, Rasit Onur Topaloglu, and Swaroop Ghosh. 2022. Muzzle the shuttle: efficient compilation for multi-trap trapped-ion quantum computers. In 2022 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE). IEEE, 322–327

    2022

  56. [65]

    QCCDsim. 2020. QCCD Compiler and Simulator. https://github. com/prakashmurali/QCCDSim

    2020

  57. [66]

    Daniel Schoenberger, Stefan Hillmich, Matthias Brandl, and Robert Wille. 2024. Using Boolean satisfiability for exact shuttling in trapped- ion quantum computers. In 2024 29th Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference (ASP-DAC). IEEE, 127–133

    2024

  58. [67]

    Asim Sharma and Avah Banerjee. 2023. Noise-aware Token Swapping for Qubit Routing. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), V ol. 1. IEEE, 82–88

    2023

  59. [68]

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

    1994

  60. [69]

    Daniel Schoenberger, Stefan Hillmich, Matthias Brandl, and Robert Wille. 2024. Shuttling for Scalable Trapped-Ion Quantum Computers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14065 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Marcos Yukio Siraichi, Vinícius Fernandes dos Santos, Caroline Col- lange, and Fernando Magno Quintão Pereira. 2019. Qubit allocation as a combination of subgraph isomorphism and token swapping. Pro- ceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages 3, OOPSLA (2019), 1–29

    2019

  62. [71]

    MC Smith, AD Leu, K Miyanishi, MF Gely, and DM Lucas. 2024. Single-qubit gates with errors at the 10−7 level. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.04421 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Kelly E Stevens, Jason M Amini, S Charles Doret, Greg Mohler, Curtis V olin, and Alexa W Harter. 2017. Automating quantum experiment control: From circuit compilation to ion routing. Quantum Information Processing 16 (2017), 1–20

    2017

  64. [73]

    Marcos Yukio Siraichi, Vinícius Fernandes dos Santos, Caroline Col- lange, and Fernando Magno Quintão Pereira. 2018. Qubit allocation. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization. 113–125

    2018

  65. [74]

    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

  66. [75]

    Teague Tomesh. 2023. Quantum Circuit Generator. https://github. com/teaguetomesh/quantum_circuit_generator

    2023

  67. [76]

    Colin J Trout, Muyuan Li, Mauricio Gutiérrez, Yukai Wu, Sheng-Tao Wang, Luming Duan, and Kenneth R Brown. 2018. Simulating the performance of a distance-3 surface code in a linear ion trap. New Journal of Physics 20, 4 (apr 2018), 043038. doi: 10.1088/1367- 2630/aab341

    2018 doi

  68. [77]

    Bochen Tan and Jason Cong. 2020. Optimal layout synthesis for quan- tum computing. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Computer-Aided Design. 1–9

    2020

  69. [78]

    Yong Wan, Daniel Kienzler, Stephen D Erickson, Karl H Mayer, Ting Rei Tan, Jenny J Wu, Hilma M Vasconcelos, Scott Glancy, Emanuel Knill, David J Wineland, et al . 2019. Quantum gate tele- portation between separated qubits in a trapped-ion processor. Science 364, 6443 (2019), 875–878

    2019

  70. [79]

    Hanrui Wang, Yongshan Ding, Jiaqi Gu, Yujun Lin, David Z Pan, Frederic T Chong, and Song Han. 2022. Quantumnas: Noise-adaptive search for robust quantum circuits. In 2022 IEEE International Sym- posium on High-Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA). IEEE, 692–708

    2022

  71. [80]

    Pengfei Wang, Chun-Yang Luan, Mu Qiao, Mark Um, Junhua Zhang, Ye Wang, Xiao Yuan, Mile Gu, Jingning Zhang, and Kihwan Kim

  72. [81]

    Suryansh Upadhyay, Abdullah Ash Saki, Rasit Onur Topaloglu, and Swaroop Ghosh. 2022. A Shuttle-Efficient Qubit Mapper for Trapped- Ion Quantum Computers. In Proceedings of the Great Lakes Sympo- sium on VLSI 2022. 305–308

    2022

  73. [82]

    Xian Wu, Chenghong Zhu, Jingbo Wang, and Xin Wang. 2024. BOSS: Blocking algorithm for optimizing shuttling scheduling in Ion Trap. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03443 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  74. [84]

    Xin-Chuan Wu, Dripto M Debroy, Yongshan Ding, Jonathan M Baker, Yuri Alexeev, Kenneth R Brown, and Frederic T Chong. 2021. Tilt: Achieving higher fidelity on a trapped-ion linear-tape quantum com- puting architecture. In 2021 IEEE International Symposium on High- Performance C...

    2021

  75. [85]

    Xin-Chuan Wu, Yongshan Ding, Yunong Shi, Yuri Alexeev, Hal Finkel, Kibaek Kim, and Frederic T Chong. 2019. ILP-based scheduling for linear-tape model trapped-ion quantum computers. In the Proceedings 16 S-SYNC: Shuttle and Swap Co-Optimization in Quantum Charge-Coupled Devices...

    2019

  76. [86]

    David J Wineland, Christopher Monroe, Wayne M Itano, Dietrich Leibfried, Brian E King, and Dawn M Meekhof. 1998. Experimen- tal issues in coherent quantum-state manipulation of trapped atomic ions. Journal of research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 103, ...

    1998

  77. [87]

    Di Yu and Kun Fang. 2023. Symmetry-Based Quantum Circuit Map- ping. arXiv:2310.18026 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  78. [88]

    Chi Zhang, Ari B Hayes, Longfei Qiu, Yuwei Jin, Yanhao Chen, and Eddy Z Zhang. 2021. Time-optimal qubit mapping. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems. 360–374

    2021

  79. [89]

    Alwin Zulehner, Stefan Gasser, and Robert Wille. 2017. Exact global reordering for nearest neighbor quantum circuits using A. In Interna- tional conference on reversible computation. Springer, 185–201

    2017

  80. [90]

    Alwin Zulehner, Alexandru Paler, and Robert Wille. 2018. An efficient methodology for mapping quantum circuits to the IBM QX architec- tures. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 38, 7 (2018), 1226–1236. 17

    2018

  81. [91]

    Yukai Wu, Sheng-Tao Wang, and L-M Duan. 2018. Noise analysis for high-fidelity quantum entangling gates in an anharmonic linear paul trap. Physical Review A 97, 6 (2018), 062325

    2018

  82. [2012]

    Nature 489, 7417 (2012), 541–545

    A single-atom electron spin qubit in silicon. Nature 489, 7417 (2012), 541–545

    2012

  83. [2021]

    Nature communications 12, 1 (2021), 233

    Single ion qubit with estimated coherence time exceeding one hour. Nature communications 12, 1 (2021), 233

    2021

  84. [2023]

    Nature Communications 14, 1 (2023), 531

    A high-fidelity quantum matter-link between ion-trap microchip modules. Nature Communications 14, 1 (2023), 531

    2023

  85. [2024]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02280 (2024)

    Demonstration of logical qubits and repeated error correction with better-than-physical error rates. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02280 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.