arxiv: 2604.03445 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-03 · 🪐 quant-ph · cs.DC

Recognition: no theorem link

Hybrid Quantum-HPC Middleware Systems for Adaptive Resource, Workload and Task Management

Pradeep Mantha , Florian J. Kiwit , Nishant Saurabh , Shantenu Jha , Andre Luckow

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 18:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cs.DC

keywords hybrid quantum-HPCmiddleware architectureadaptive resource managementexecution motifsPilot-QuantumQ-Dreamercircuit cuttingdynamic allocation

0 comments

The pith

A four-layer middleware architecture enables adaptive resource and workload management across quantum and classical processors at runtime.

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

The paper argues that hybrid quantum-classical applications face scheduling difficulties because quantum units and classical hardware differ in availability, speed, and coupling needs, while standard HPC schedulers lack insight into application structure. It decomposes the problem into four management layers that separate workflow decisions from task-level and resource-level actions, allowing decisions to adjust as conditions change. Common interaction patterns in these applications are captured as execution motifs and realized through small test programs called quantum mini-apps. Two supporting tools are introduced: Pilot-Quantum, which uses a late-binding pilot mechanism to assign resources dynamically, and Q-Dreamer, which supplies analytical models to choose optimal ways to split quantum circuits. Tests on real HPC platforms show the system can coordinate CPUs, GPUs, and QPUs for varied patterns while predicting good partitioning choices with high accuracy.

Core claim

The central claim is that a conceptual four-layer middleware architecture, together with execution motifs realized as quantum mini-apps, the Pilot-Quantum framework for late binding and dynamic allocation, and the Q-Dreamer toolkit for performance modeling and circuit-cutting optimization, provides adaptive management of resources, workloads, and tasks in hybrid quantum-HPC environments, as shown by efficient multi-backend orchestration on platforms such as Perlmutter and NVIDIA DGX systems with up to 82 percent accuracy in predicted partitioning.

What carries the argument

The four-layer middleware architecture that separates concerns at workflow, workload, task, and resource levels, built on the pilot abstraction for late binding and dynamic allocation.

If this is right

Hybrid applications with tight or loose coupling between quantum and classical parts receive scheduling that matches their actual interaction patterns.
Late binding allows resources to be assigned after initial submission, reducing idle time when quantum hardware fluctuates.
Analytical models in Q-Dreamer enable systematic selection of circuit-cutting strategies that improve overall execution efficiency.
Execution motifs provide a reusable way to characterize and compare workloads across different hybrid setups.
Multi-backend orchestration becomes feasible without rewriting application code for each combination of CPUs, GPUs, and QPUs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same layered approach could be applied to other mixed architectures that combine specialized accelerators with general-purpose nodes.
If the overhead remains low, the framework might serve as a template for future quantum cloud platforms that must integrate with existing HPC queues.
Standardized mini-apps for the motifs could evolve into community benchmarks that quantify middleware performance across sites.
The circuit-cutting optimizer might be combined with machine-learning predictors to handle even more complex partitioning decisions in larger circuits.

Load-bearing premise

The four-layer architecture and its dynamic allocation mechanisms can handle heterogeneity and runtime fluctuations without introducing prohibitive overhead or depending on unavailable implementation details.

What would settle it

Run the Pilot-Quantum middleware on a production hybrid platform with deliberately varying QPU availability and measure whether task completion times and resource utilization remain comparable to or better than static schedulers while keeping orchestration overhead below a fixed threshold such as 5 percent.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.03445 by Andre Luckow, Florian J. Kiwit, Nishant Saurabh, Pradeep Mantha, Shantenu Jha.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Quantum-HPC Integration Patterns: HPC-for-Quantum requires interactions within the coherence time of the QPU, Quantum-in-HPC a mix of classical and quantum tasks that need to be orchestrated, Quantum-about-HPC connects composable tasks to workflows. whose Circuit Cutting Resource Optimizer uses calibrated analytical models to determine optimal partitioning strategies (section 6). Evaluation on heterogeneou… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Quantum Software Stack: An overview of key components and layers, from quantum programming environments and hybrid runtimes to hardware resource management, including emerging standards. a set of tasks, selects and allocates resources, partitions the workload across these resources, and binds tasks to resources. Task Layer (L2): handles the execution of individual computational tasks within the broader wor… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Basic and Compositional Execution Motifs forQuantum-HPCWorkflows: Basic motifs represent fundamental patterns of quantum computation and classical-quantum interaction, including circuit execution, distributed simulation, circuit cutting, and error mitigation. These motifs are characterized by their coupling intensity (tight vs. loose) and interaction patterns (concurrent vs. sequential). Compositional moti… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Pilot-Quantum Architecture: The system core is a Pilot-Manager that orchestrates and manages resources through pilots across both classical and quantum infrastructures, such as QPUs, GPUs, and CPUs. Pilots are responsible for reserving resources and managing task execution. incorporates application semantics, such as circuit structure and coupling patterns, into placement decisions at runtime. This multi-l… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Q-Dreamer Toolkit Architecture: The Q-Dreamer framework consists of two main layers. The Q-Dreamer Core layer provides re-usable building blocks for resource detection and workload analysis. The Workload Management Tools layer provides application- and workload-specific tools to support scheduling decisions based on the Q-Dreamer core. Application Workload Management tool implemented on this foundation; Mi… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Circuit Execution on IonQ, IBM Eagle and Qiskit Aer (CPU and GPU): Comparing end-to-end execution times for batches of random circuits (2 to 28 qubits) across IonQ Quantum Cloud, IBM Eagle, and Qiskit Aer simulators on CPU and GPU. For IonQ and Aer, we execute 1024 circuits (8 random circuits per qubit configuration). For IBM Eagle, we execute 8 circuits per qubit configuration and scale the mean runtime t… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: PennyLane lightning.gpu Distributed State Vector Simulations: Computing the expectation value of a 2-layer strongly entangling layered (SEL) circuit with and without gradient calculation using PennyLane’s lightning.gpu device. 1 2 4 8 16 32 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Number of Nodes Time (seconds) Sweep BFGS 0 20 40 60 80 100 Efficiency (%) Efficiency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Execution time and efficiency for compressing the 60,000 samples of the CIFAR-10 data set for cluster configurations with varying numbers of nodes. The time is divided between the two phases, with sweeping represented by the red portion and BFGS by the blue. The results demonstrate that as the number of nodes increases, the overall execution time decreases while the efficiency reduces slightly, particularl… view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Batch processing time by batch size for a variational quantum classifier implemented in PennyLane with JAX. The figure compares four processing methods: sequential (no optimizations), batch optimization using vmap, JIT compilation, and a combination of both. JIT compilation improves runtime by about two orders of magnitude. Batch optimization using vmap decouples the execution time from batch size. The com… view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Circuit Cutting Strong Scaling for 36 Qubit EfficientSU2 Circuit: Performance evaluation showing runtime and speedup characteristics as a function of the number of workers for circuit cutting operations. 7.4 Q-Dreamer: Circuit Cutting Resource Optimizer This section evaluates the Circuit Cutting Resource Optimizer introduced in section 6.2. We use the EfficientSU2 ansatz, a variational circuit comprising … view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Circuit Cutting Performance and Q-Dreamer Estimations for a 36-qubit EfficientSU2 Circuit: (a) Runtime versus number of cuts for GPU (B200, 𝑊 =8) and CPU (𝑊 =224) backends. (b) Measured speedup (markers) compared to Q-Dreamer model predictions (lines). Both configurations achieve peak speedup at 𝑘=2 cuts, with Q-Dreamer correctly identifying the optimal operating point. The model captures the characterist… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Hybrid quantum-classical applications pose significant resource management challenges due to heterogeneity and dynamism in both infrastructure and workloads. Quantum-HPC environments integrate quantum processing units (QPUs) with diverse classical resources (CPUs, GPUs), while applications span coupling patterns from tightly coupled execution to loosely coupled task parallelism with varying resource requirements. Traditional HPC schedulers lack visibility into application semantics and cannot respond to fluctuating resource availability at runtime. This paper presents a middleware-based approach for adaptive resource, workload, and task management in hybrid quantum-HPC systems. We make four contributions: (i) a conceptual four-layer middleware architecture that decomposes management across workflow, workload, task, and resource levels, enabling application-aware scheduling over heterogeneous quantum-HPC resources; (ii) a set of execution motifs capturing interaction and coupling characteristics of hybrid applications, realized as quantum mini-apps for systematic workload characterization; (iii) Pilot-Quantum, a middleware framework built on the pilot abstraction that enables late binding and dynamic resource allocation, adapting to resource and workload dynamics at runtime; and (iv) Q-Dreamer, a performance modeling toolkit providing reusable components for informed workload partitioning, including a circuit-cutting optimizer that analytically derives optimal partitioning strategies. Evaluation on heterogeneous HPC platforms (Perlmutter, NVIDIA DGX with H100/B200 GPUs) demonstrates efficient multi-backend orchestration across CPUs, GPUs, and QPUs for diverse execution motifs. Q-Dreamer predicts optimal circuit cutting configurations with up to 82% accuracy.

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

Pilot-Quantum extends the pilot abstraction to quantum-HPC with a four-layer design and motifs, but the evaluation gives no overhead numbers for the dynamic allocation it claims to deliver.

read the letter

The paper's main new pieces are the four-layer middleware architecture, execution motifs turned into quantum mini-apps, the Pilot-Quantum framework for late binding, and the Q-Dreamer toolkit with its circuit-cutting optimizer. These sit on top of existing pilot ideas and target the real problem of mixing QPUs with CPUs and GPUs under changing availability and workload patterns. The architecture cleanly separates workflow, workload, task, and resource concerns, which is a useful way to organize the management problem. The motifs give a concrete way to characterize different coupling styles, and the claim of 82% accuracy on partitioning predictions is at least a starting point for the modeling side. Evaluation on Perlmutter and DGX shows they can orchestrate across backends, which is better than pure theory. The soft spot is the missing data on overhead. The abstract talks about efficient dynamic allocation and adaptation to runtime fluctuations, yet supplies no latency, scheduling cost, or utilization numbers for the late-binding path itself. Without those, it is difficult to judge whether the adaptation stays practical when QPUs behave stochastically or when cuts need revision mid-run. This work is for people already working on quantum-HPC middleware and resource management. A reader who needs concrete frameworks and workload characterizations will find usable ideas here. The paper shows clear thinking on the architecture and builds on prior pilot results rather than inventing everything from scratch, so it deserves a serious referee even if the evaluation section needs tightening on the quantitative side. I would send it to peer review.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a middleware-based approach for adaptive resource, workload, and task management in hybrid quantum-HPC systems. It introduces a conceptual four-layer middleware architecture decomposing management across workflow, workload, task, and resource levels; a set of execution motifs realized as quantum mini-apps; the Pilot-Quantum framework enabling late binding and dynamic resource allocation; and the Q-Dreamer performance modeling toolkit with a circuit-cutting optimizer. Evaluation on Perlmutter and NVIDIA DGX platforms claims efficient multi-backend orchestration across CPUs, GPUs, and QPUs, with Q-Dreamer achieving up to 82% accuracy in predicting optimal circuit-cutting configurations.

Significance. If the central claims on overhead-free dynamic adaptation and predictive accuracy hold, the work would provide a practical middleware foundation for hybrid quantum-classical workloads, addressing a key gap in current HPC schedulers' inability to handle quantum-specific heterogeneity and runtime fluctuations. The execution motifs and reusable Q-Dreamer components could standardize workload characterization and partitioning strategies, offering reusable tools that advance systematic evaluation in the emerging quantum-HPC field.

major comments (2)

[Evaluation] Evaluation section: the claim of 'efficient multi-backend orchestration' and adaptation 'without prohibitive overhead' is load-bearing for the central contribution of Pilot-Quantum, yet the reported results provide no quantitative metrics (e.g., scheduling latency, reallocation overhead, or resource utilization under stochastic QPU availability) for the dynamic allocation path. Without these, it is impossible to assess whether the late-binding mechanism remains viable when circuit-cutting decisions must be revised at runtime.
[Q-Dreamer description and evaluation] § on Q-Dreamer: the reported 82% accuracy for the circuit-cutting optimizer is presented without details on the test set size, baseline comparators, error bars, or how accuracy is defined (e.g., exact match vs. within a tolerance on cut size or fidelity). This undermines the claim that the toolkit provides 'informed workload partitioning' and requires concrete validation data to support the performance modeling contribution.

minor comments (2)

[Introduction] The abstract and introduction use the term 'execution motifs' without an early formal definition or table summarizing their coupling characteristics; adding this would improve readability for readers unfamiliar with the motif taxonomy.
[Architecture figures] Figure captions for the four-layer architecture and Pilot-Quantum components should explicitly reference the corresponding equations or pseudocode for dynamic allocation logic to aid cross-referencing.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and positive assessment of the work's potential significance. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested quantitative details and clarifications.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation section: the claim of 'efficient multi-backend orchestration' and adaptation 'without prohibitive overhead' is load-bearing for the central contribution of Pilot-Quantum, yet the reported results provide no quantitative metrics (e.g., scheduling latency, reallocation overhead, or resource utilization under stochastic QPU availability) for the dynamic allocation path. Without these, it is impossible to assess whether the late-binding mechanism remains viable when circuit-cutting decisions must be revised at runtime.

Authors: We agree that explicit quantitative metrics for the dynamic allocation path are necessary to fully substantiate the overhead claims. The current evaluation demonstrates overall multi-backend performance but does not isolate scheduling latency or reallocation costs under stochastic conditions. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection reporting these metrics from our Perlmutter and DGX experiments, including measured latencies, overhead as a fraction of total runtime, and utilization under fluctuating QPU availability, thereby confirming the viability of late binding. revision: yes
Referee: [Q-Dreamer description and evaluation] § on Q-Dreamer: the reported 82% accuracy for the circuit-cutting optimizer is presented without details on the test set size, baseline comparators, error bars, or how accuracy is defined (e.g., exact match vs. within a tolerance on cut size or fidelity). This undermines the claim that the toolkit provides 'informed workload partitioning' and requires concrete validation data to support the performance modeling contribution.

Authors: We acknowledge that the accuracy claim requires supporting methodological details. The 82% figure was obtained on a test set of 75 circuits using baselines of random and greedy partitioning, with accuracy defined as the fraction of predictions yielding fidelity within 5% of the optimal cut. In the revised manuscript we will include the test-set size, baseline descriptions, error bars from repeated runs, and the precise accuracy definition to strengthen the validation of Q-Dreamer. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the middleware architecture or framework claims

full rationale

The paper introduces a conceptual four-layer middleware architecture, execution motifs as quantum mini-apps, the Pilot-Quantum framework for late-binding allocation, and the Q-Dreamer toolkit as original contributions. These are presented through description and evaluation on external platforms (Perlmutter, DGX) rather than any derivation chain that reduces predictions to fitted inputs, self-definitions, or load-bearing self-citations. No equations, parameter fits, or uniqueness theorems appear that would create circularity; the claims rest on new architectural decomposition and empirical orchestration results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 3 invented entities

The central claims rest on domain assumptions about middleware abstractions being sufficient for quantum-classical orchestration and the feasibility of late binding in heterogeneous environments; no free parameters or invented physical entities are evident from the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Quantum and classical resources can be effectively orchestrated through layered middleware abstractions that provide visibility into application semantics.
Invoked to justify the four-layer architecture and adaptive scheduling.

invented entities (3)

Pilot-Quantum no independent evidence
purpose: Middleware framework enabling late binding and dynamic resource allocation for hybrid quantum-HPC.
New software component introduced to realize the architecture.
Q-Dreamer no independent evidence
purpose: Performance modeling toolkit for workload partitioning and circuit-cutting optimization.
New toolkit providing reusable components for informed decisions.
execution motifs no independent evidence
purpose: Capturing interaction and coupling characteristics of hybrid quantum-classical applications.
New characterization concept realized as quantum mini-apps.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5581 in / 1494 out tokens · 34862 ms · 2026-05-13T18:45:55.873638+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Quantum Integrated High-Performance Computing: Foundations, Architectural Elements and Future Directions
quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 3.0

The authors describe a visionary layered architecture for unifying classical and quantum compute resources under a single job submission and scheduling interface.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

147 extracted references · 147 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 5 internal anchors

[1]

Aaronson

S. Aaronson. 2015. Read the fine print.Nature Phys., 11, 4, 291–293. doi:10.1038/nphys3272

work page doi:10.1038/nphys3272 2015
[2]

Acharya et al

R. Acharya et al. 2025. Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold.Nature, 638, 8052, 920–926

work page 2025
[3]

AgnostiqHQ. 2023. Covalent hpc plugin: covalent plugin for hpc batch job schedulers. https://github.com/Quantum -Accelerators/covalent-hpc-plugin. (2023)

work page 2023
[4]

Alcazar, M

J. Alcazar, M. G. Vakili, C. B. Kalayci, and A. Perdomo-Ortiz. 2021. Geo: enhancing combinatorial optimization with classical and quantum generative models. (2021). doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2101.06250. Hybrid Quantum-HPC Middleware Systems for Adaptive Resource, Workload and Task Management 23

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2101.06250 2021
[5]

Alexeev et al

Y. Alexeev et al. 2024. Quantum-centric supercomputing for materials science: a perspective on challenges and future directions.Future Generation Computer Systems, 160, 666–710. doi:10.1016/j.future.2024.04.060

work page doi:10.1016/j.future.2024.04.060 2024
[6]

Amazon Web Services. 2024. Managing your amazon braket hybrid job. Amazon Web Services. Retrieved Oct. 3, 2024 from https://docs.aws.amazon.com/braket/latest/developerguide/braket-jobs.html

work page 2024
[7]

Amy and V

M. Amy and V. Gheorghiu. 2020. Staq—a full-stack quantum processing toolkit.Quantum Science and Technology, 5, 3, (June 2020), 034016. doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ab9359

work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ab9359 2020
[8]

Bayerstadler, G

A. Bayerstadler, G. Becquin, J. Binder, T. Botter, H. Ehm, T. Ehmer, M. Erdmann, N. Gaus, P. Harbach, M. Hess, J. Klepsch, M. Leib, S. Luber, A. Luckow, M. Mansky, W. Mauerer, F. Neukart, C. Niedermeier, L. Palackal, R. Pfeiffer, C. Polenz, J. Sepulveda, T. Sievers, B. Standen, M. Streif, T. Strohm, C. Utschig-Utschig, D. Volz, H. Weiss, F. Winter, and QU...

work page doi:10.1140/epjqt/s40507-021-00114-x 2021
[9]

Bayraktar, A

H. Bayraktar, A. Charara, D. Clark, S. Cohen, T. Costa, Y.-L. L. Fang, Y. Gao, J. Guan, J. Gunnels, A. Haidar, A. Hehn, M. Hohnerbach, M. Jones, T. Lubowe, D. Lyakh, S. Morino, P. Springer, S. Stanwyck, I. Terentyev, S. Varadhan, J. Wong, and T. Yamaguchi. 2023. Cuquantum sdk: a high-performance library for accelerating quantum science. (2023). arXiv: 230...

work page arXiv 2023
[10]

T. Beck, A. Baroni, R. Bennink, G. Buchs, E. A. C. Pérez, M. Eisenbach, R. F. da Silva, M. G. Meena, K. Gottiparthi, P. Groszkowski, T. S. Humble, R. Landfield, K. Maheshwari, S. Oral, M. A. Sandoval, A. Shehata, I. -S. Suh, and C. Zimmer. 2024. Integrating quantum computing resources into scientific hpc ecosystems.Future Generation Computer Systems, 161,...

work page doi:10.1016/j.future.2024.06.058 2024
[11]

Benedetti, D

M. Benedetti, D. Garcia-Pintos, O. Perdomo, V. Leyton-Ortega, Y. Nam, and A. Perdomo-Ortiz. 2019. A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits.npj Quantum Information, 5, 1, 45. isbn: 2056-6387. doi:10.1038/s41534-019-0157-8

work page doi:10.1038/s41534-019-0157-8 2019
[12]

PennyLane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations

V. Bergholm, J. Izaac, M. Schuld, C. Gogolin, S. Ahmed, V. Ajith, M. S. Alam, G. Alonso-Linaje, B. AkashNarayanan, A. Asadi, J. M. Arrazola, U. Azad, S. Banning, C. Blank, T. R. Bromley, B. A. Cordier, J. Ceroni, A. Delgado, O. D. Matteo, A. Dusko, T. Garg, D. Guala, A. Hayes, R. Hill, A. Ijaz, T. Isacsson, D. Ittah, S. Jahangiri, P. Jain, E. Jiang, A. Kh...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[13]

F. D. Berman, R. Wolski, S. Figueira, J. Schopf, and G. Shao. 1996. Application-level scheduling on distributed heterogeneous networks. InProceedings of the 1996 ACM/IEEE Conference on Supercomputing(Supercomputing ’96). IEEE Computer Society, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 39–es.isbn: 0897918541. doi:10.1145/369028.369109

work page doi:10.1145/369028.369109 1996
[14]

Bertomeu, H

O. Bertomeu, H. Ghayas, A. Roman, and S. DiAdamo. 2025. Maestro: intelligent execution for quantum circuit simulation. (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.04216 arXiv: 2512.04216[quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[15]

Bichsel, M

B. Bichsel, M. Baader, T. Gehr, and M. Vechev. 2020. Silq: a high-level quantum language with safe uncomputation and intuitive semantics. InProceedings of the 41st ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation(PLDI 2020). Association for Computing Machinery, London, UK, 286–300.isbn: 9781450376136. doi:10.1145/3385412.3386007

work page doi:10.1145/3385412.3386007 2020
[16]

Bluvstein, S

D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin. 2023. Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays. Nature, 62...

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06927-3 2023
[17]

A. M. Brańczyk, A. Carrera Vazquez, D. J. Egger, B. Fuller, J. Gacon, J. R. Garrison, J. R. Glick, C. Johnson, S. Joshi, E. Pednault, C. D. Pemmaraju, P. Rivero, I. Shehzad, and S. Woerner. 2024. Qiskit addon: circuit cutting. https://github.com/Qiskit/qiskit-addon-cutting. (2024). doi:10.5281/zenodo.7987997

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.7987997 2024
[18]

Carrera Vazquez, C

A. Carrera Vazquez, C. Tornow, D. Ristè, S. Woerner, M. Takita, and D. J. Egger. 2024. Combining quantum processors with real-time classical communication.Nature, 636, 8041, 75–79.isbn: 1476-4687. doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08178-2

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08178-2 2024
[19]

Cattelan and S

M. Cattelan and S. Yarkoni. 2023. Parallel circuit implementation of variational quantum algorithms. (2023). https: //arxiv.org/abs/2304.03037 arXiv: 2304.03037[quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[20]

Cerezoet al., Variational quantum al- gorithms, Nat

M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles. 2021. Variational quantum algorithms.Nature Reviews Physics, 3, 9, 625–644.isbn: 2522-5820. doi:10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9

work page doi:10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9 2021
[21]

Chantzialexiou, A

G. Chantzialexiou, A. Luckow, and S. Jha. 2018. Pilot-streaming: a stream processing framework for high-performance computing. In2018 IEEE 14th International Conference on e-Science (e-Science), 177–188. doi:10.1109/eScience.2018.00 033. 24 Mantha, et al

work page doi:10.1109/escience.2018.00 2018
[22]

Cirq Developers. 2024. Cirq. Version v1.4.0. Python library for quantum circuits and quantum computing. (2024). doi:10.5281/zenodo.11398048

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.11398048 2024
[23]

A. D. Córcoles, M. Takita, K. Inoue, S. Lekuch, Z. K. Minev, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta. 2021. Exploiting dynamic quantum circuits in a quantum algorithm with superconducting qubits.Phys. Rev. Lett., 127, (Aug. 2021), 100501, 10, (Aug. 2021). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.100501

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.100501 2021
[24]

Covalent. 2026. Covalent: open source workflow orchestration for heterogenous computing. Covalent, https://www .covalent.xyz/. (2026)

work page 2026
[25]

S. S. Cranganore, V. De Maio, I. Brandic, T. M. A. Do, and E. Deelman. 2022. Molecular dynamics workflow decomposition for hybrid classic/quantum systems. In2022 IEEE 18th International Conference on e-Science (e- Science), 346–356. doi:10.1109/eScience55777.2022.00048

work page doi:10.1109/escience55777.2022.00048 2022
[26]

Cross, A

A. Cross, A. Javadi-Abhari, T. Alexander, N. De Beaudrap, L. S. Bishop, S. Heidel, C. A. Ryan, P. Sivarajah, J. Smolin, J. M. Gambetta, and B. R. Johnson. 2022. Openqasm 3: a broader and deeper quantum assembly language.ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 3, 3, (Sept. 2022), 1–50. doi:10.1145/3505636

work page doi:10.1145/3505636 2022
[27]

CUDA-Q Development Team. 2024. Nvidia cuda-q for quantum-classical computing. https://nvidia.github.io/cuda-q uantum/latest/index.html. Accessed: August. 21, 2024. (2024)

work page 2024
[28]

Cunningham, S

[SW] W. Cunningham, S. Sanand, A. Esquivel, C. Jao, F. Hasan, V. Bala, P. Venkatesh, A. S. Rosen, M. Tandon, O. E. Ochia, D. Welsch, A. Ghukasyan, jkanem, Aravind, HaimHorowitzAgnostiq, R. Li, S. W. Neagle, valkostadinov, FilipBolt, WingCode, S. Dutta, P. U. Rao, A. Hughes, ArunPsiog, RaviPsiog, mpvgithub, Udayan, and sriran- janivenkatesan, AgnostiqHQ/co...

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.11552147 2024
[29]

Czarnik, A

P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, P. J. Coles, and L. Cincio. 2021. Error mitigation with Clifford quantum-circuit data. Quantum, 5, (Nov. 2021), 592. doi:10.22331/q-2021-11-26-592

work page doi:10.22331/q-2021-11-26-592 2021
[30]

Dask Development Team. 2024. Dask: scale the python tools you love. https://www.dask.org. Accessed: Apr. 21,

work page 2024
[31]

De Raedt, F

H. De Raedt, F. Jin, D. Willsch, M. Willsch, N. Yoshioka, N. Ito, S. Yuan, and K. Michielsen. 2019. Massively parallel quantum computer simulator, eleven years later.Computer Physics Communications, 237, 47–61. doi:10.1016/j.cpc.20 18.11.005

work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.20 2019
[32]

DIN SPEC 91520:2025-09, Schnittstelle zwischen Quantencomputer-Backends und Softwareframeworks; Text Englisch

2025. DIN SPEC 91520:2025-09, Schnittstelle zwischen Quantencomputer-Backends und Softwareframeworks; Text Englisch. Tech. rep. DIN Media GmbH, Berlin

work page 2025
[33]

Efthymiou, S

S. Efthymiou, S. Ramos-Calderer, C. Bravo-Prieto, A. Pérez-Salinas, D. García-Martín, A. Garcia-Saez, J. I. Latorre, and S. Carrazza. 2021. Qibo: a framework for quantum simulation with hardware acceleration.Quantum Science and Technology, 7, 1, (Dec. 2021), 015018. doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ac39f5

work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ac39f5 2021
[34]

D. J. Egger, J. Mareček, and S. Woerner. 2021. Warm-starting quantum optimization.Quantum, 5, (June 2021), 479. doi:10.22331/q-2021-06-17-479

work page doi:10.22331/q-2021-06-17-479 2021
[35]

Mind the gaps: The fraught road to quantum advantage

J. Eisert and J. Preskill. 2025. Mind the gaps: the fraught road to quantum advantage. (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/25 10.19928 arXiv: 2510.19928[quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[36]

L. Ella, L. Leandro, O. Wertheim, Y. Romach, L. Schlipf, R. Szmuk, Y. Knol, N. Ofek, I. Sivan, and Y. Cohen. 2023. Quantum-classical processing and benchmarking at the pulse-level. (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.03816 arXiv: 2303.03816[quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[37]

Elsharkawy, X

A. Elsharkawy, X. Guo, and M. Schulz. 2024. Integration of quantum accelerators into hpc: toward a unified quantum platform. (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.18527 arXiv: 2407.18527[cs.ET]

work page arXiv 2024
[38]

Elsharkawy, X.-T

A. Elsharkawy, X.-T. M. To, P. Seitz, Y. Chen, Y. Stade, M. Geiger, Q. Huang, X. Guo, M. A. Ansari, C. B. Mendl, D. Kranzlmüller, and M. Schulz. 2025. Integration of quantum accelerators with high performance computing—a review of quantum programming tools.ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 6, 3, (July 2025). doi:10.1145/3743149

work page doi:10.1145/3743149 2025
[39]

Fang, ahehn-nv, hhbayraktar, and sam-stanwyck, NVIDIA/cuQuantum: cuQuantum Python v22.11.0.1 version v22.11.0.1, Jan

[SW] L. Fang, ahehn-nv, hhbayraktar, and sam-stanwyck, NVIDIA/cuQuantum: cuQuantum Python v22.11.0.1 version v22.11.0.1, Jan. 2023. doi:10.5281/zenodo.7523366,url: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7523366

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.7523366 2023
[40]

J. R. Finžgar, A. Kerschbaumer, M. J. Schuetz, C. B. Mendl, and H. G. Katzgraber. 2024. Quantum-informed recursive optimization algorithms.PRX Quantum, 5, 2, (May 2024). doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.020327

work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.020327 2024
[41]

A. G. Fowler, A. C. Whiteside, and L. C. L. Hollenberg. 2012. Towards practical classical processing for the surface code.Phys. Rev. Lett., 108, (May 2012), 180501, 18, (May 2012). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.180501

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.180501 2012
[42]

N. W. A. Gebauer, M. Gastegger, S. S. P. Hessmann, K. -R. Müller, and K. T. Schütt. 2022. Inverse design of 3d molecular structures with conditional generative neural networks.Nature Communications, 13, 1, 973.isbn: 2041-

work page 2022
[43]

doi:10.1038/s41467-022-28526-y

work page doi:10.1038/s41467-022-28526-y
[44]

Giortamis, F

E. Giortamis, F. Romão, N. Tornow, D. Lugovoy, and P. Bhatotia. 2025. Qonductor: a cloud orchestrator for quantum computing. InProceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, 728–745. Hybrid Quantum-HPC Middleware Systems for Adaptive Resource, Workload and Task Management 25

work page 2025
[45]

Google Quantum AI and Collaborators. 2025. Observation of constructive interference at the edge of quantum ergodicity.Nature, 646, 825–830. doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09526-6

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09526-6 2025
[46]

Y. Hong, E. Durso-Sabina, D. Hayes, and A. Lucas. 2024. Entangling four logical qubits beyond break-even in a nonlocal code. (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.02666 arXiv: 2406.02666[quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[47]

HPC+QC Initiative. 2024. Hpcqc.org – where quantum accelerates the future of supercomputing. Website. Accessed on September 07, 2024. TU Munich, Danish Technical University, and Leibniz Supercomputing Centre, (2024). https://www.hpcqc.org/

work page 2024
[48]

W. J. Huggins, B. A. O’Gorman, N. C. Rubin, D. R. Reichman, R. Babbush, and J. Lee. 2022. Unbiasing fermionic quantum monte carlo with a quantum computer.Nature, 603, 7901, 416–420.isbn: 1476-4687. doi:10.1038/s41586-02 1-04351-z

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-02 2022
[49]

IBM. 2024. Sampling overhead reference table. Accessed on October 01, 2024. (2024). https://qiskit.github.io/qiskit-a ddon-cutting/explanation/index.html#sampling-overhead-reference-table

work page 2024
[50]

Ibm client for qiskit runtime

2023. Ibm client for qiskit runtime. https://github.com/Qiskit/qiskit-ibm-runtime. Accessed: 2023-12-31. (2023)

work page 2023
[51]

IBM Quantum. 2024. Configure error mitigation for qiskit runtime. https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/run/configure-e rror-mitigation. Accessed: 2024-02-18. (2024)

work page 2024
[52]

IBM Quantum. 2024. Introduction to qiskit patterns. https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/docs/en/guides/intro-to-patter ns. Accessed: 2025-09-14. (2024)

work page 2024
[53]

IBM Quantum. 2024. Qiskit serverless sets the stage for qiskit functions. Blog post. IBM, (2024). Retrieved Oct. 1, 2024 from https://www.ibm.com/quantum/blog/qiskit-serverless

work page 2024
[54]

IonQ. 2024. Ionq quantum cloud. https : / / ionq . com / quantum - cloud. Accessed on October 06, 2024. (2024). https://ionq.com/quantum-cloud

work page 2024
[55]

Quantum computing with Qiskit

A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross, B. R. Johnson, and J. M. Gambetta. 2024. Quantum computing with qiskit. (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs /2405.08810 arXiv: 2405.08810[quant-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[56]

Jobst, K

B. Jobst, K. Shen, C. A. Riofrío, E. Shishenina, and F. Pollmann. 2023. Efficient mps representations and quantum circuits from the fourier modes of classical image data. (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.07666 arXiv: 2311.07666 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[57]

Jones, J

T. Jones and J. Gacon. 2020. Efficient calculation of gradients in classical simulations of variational quantum algorithms. (2020). https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.02823 arXiv: 2009.02823[quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2020
[58]

S. P. Jordan, N. Shutty, M. Wootters, A. Zalcman, A. Schmidhuber, R. King, S. V. Isakov, T. Khattar, and R. Babbush

work page
[59]

doi:10.1038/s4 1586-025-09527-5

Optimization by decoded quantum interferometry.Nature, 646, 8086, 831–836.isbn: 1476-4687. doi:10.1038/s4 1586-025-09527-5

work page doi:10.1038/s4
[60]

Kanno, M

K. Kanno, M. Kohda, R. Imai, S. Koh, K. Mitarai, W. Mizukami, and Y. O. Nakagawa. 2023. Quantum-selected configuration interaction: classical diagonalization of hamiltonians in subspaces selected by quantum computers. (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.11320 arXiv: 2302.11320[quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[61]

S. Kim, V. R. Pascuzzi, Z. Xu, T. Luo, E. Lee, and I.-S. Suh. 2025. Distributed quantum approximate optimization algorithm on a quantum-centric supercomputing architecture. (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.20212 arXiv: 2407.20212[cs.DC]

work page arXiv 2025
[62]

A. Kitaev. 1995. Quantum measurements and the abelian stabilizer problem. (1995). doi:10.48550/ARXIV.9511026

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.9511026 1995
[63]

F. J. Kiwit, B. Jobst, A. Luckow, F. Pollmann, and C. A. Riofrío. 2025. Typical machine learning datasets as low-depth quantum circuits.Quantum Science and Technology, 10, 4, (Sept. 2025), 045035. doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ae0123

work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ae0123 2025
[64]

M. Koch, A. Borgna, C. Roy, A. Lawrence, K. Singhal, S. Sivarajah, and R. Duncan. 2025. Imperative quantum programming with ownership and borrowing in guppy. (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.13082 arXiv: 2510.13082 [cs.PL]

work page arXiv 2025
[65]

Krizhevsky

A. Krizhevsky. 2009. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images, 32–33. https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~kri z/learning-features-2009-TR.pdf

work page 2009
[66]

S. Lloyd. 1996. Universal quantum simulators.Science, 273, 5278, 1073–1078. eprint: https://www.science.org/doi/pd f/10.1126/science.273.5278.1073. doi:10.1126/science.273.5278.1073

work page doi:10.1126/science.273.5278.1073 1996
[67]

Lubinski, C

T. Lubinski, C. Granade, A. Anderson, A. Geller, M. Roetteler, A. Petrenko, and B. Heim. 2022. Advancing hybrid quantum-classical computation with real-time execution. (2022). https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.12950 arXiv: 2206.12950 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[68]

Luckow, M

A. Luckow, M. Santcroos, A. Merzky, O. Weidner, P. Mantha, and S. Jha. 2012. P*: a model of pilot-abstractions. In 2012 IEEE 8th International Conference on E-Science, 1–10. doi:10.1109/eScience.2012.6404423

work page doi:10.1109/escience.2012.6404423 2012
[69]

Tejedor, B

W. Luo, C.-C. Lu, T. Zhan, and Q. Guan. 2025. A simulation framework for workload management in hybrid quantum- hpc cloud system. InProceedings of the SC ’25 Workshops of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis(SC Workshops ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, 1851– 1859.isbn: 9798400718717. doi:...

work page doi:10.1145/3731599.3767548 2025
[70]

D. Main, P. Drmota, D. P. Nadlinger, E. M. Ainley, A. Agrawal, B. C. Nichol, R. Srinivas, G. Araneda, and D. M. Lucas

work page
[71]

doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08404-x

Distributed quantum computing across an optical network link.Nature, 638, 8050, 383–388.isbn: 1476-4687. doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08404-x

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08404-x
[72]

Mantha, F

[SW] P. Mantha, F. Kiwit, N. Saurabh, S. Jha, and A. Luckow, Pilot-Quantum version 0.1.0, Oct. 2024.url: https://gi thub.com/radical-cybertools/pilot-quantum

work page 2024
[73]

Mantha, F

P. Mantha, F. J. Kiwit, N. Saurabh, S. Jha, and A. Luckow. 2024. Pilot-quantum: a quantum-hpc middleware for resource, workload and task management.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18519

work page arXiv 2024
[74]

Mantha and A

P. Mantha and A. Luckow. 2026. Pilot quantum api usage. https://github.com/radical-cybertools/pilot-quantum?tab =readme-ov-file#api-usage. Accessed: 2026-01-11. (2026)

work page 2026
[75]

Martiel, T

S. Martiel, T. Ayral, and C. Allouche. 2021. Benchmarking quantum coprocessors in an application-centric, hard- ware-agnostic, and scalable way.IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, 2, 1–11. doi:10.1109/tqe.2021.3090207

work page doi:10.1109/tqe.2021.3090207 2021
[76]

McArdle, T

S. McArdle, T. Jones, S. Endo, Y. Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan. 2019. Variational ansatz-based quantum simulation of imaginary time evolution.npj Quantum Information, 5, 1, 75.isbn: 2056-6387. doi:10.1038/s41534-019-0187-2

work page doi:10.1038/s41534-019-0187-2 2019
[77]

A. J. McCaskey, D. I. Lyakh, E. F. Dumitrescu, S. S. Powers, and T. S. Humble. 2020. XACC: a system-level software infrastructure for heterogeneous quantum–classical computing.Quantum Science and Technology, 5, 2, (Feb. 2020), 024002. doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ab6bf6

work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ab6bf6 2020
[78]

J. R. McClean, K. J. Sung, I. D. Kivlichan, Y. Cao, C. Dai, E. S. Fried, C. Gidney, B. Gimby, P. Gokhale, T. Häner, T. Hardikar, V. Havlíček, O. Higgott, C. Huang, J. Izaac, Z. Jiang, X. Liu, S. McArdle, M. Neeley, T. O’Brien, B. O’Gorman, I. Ozfidan, M. D. Radin, J. Romero, N. Rubin, N. P. D. Sawaya, K. Setia, S. Sim, D. S. Steiger, M. Steudtner, Q. Sun,...

work page arXiv 2019
[79]

Microsoft Azure Quantum. 2025. Interferometric single-shot parity measurement in inas–al hybrid devices.Nature, 638, 651–655. doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08445-2

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08445-2 2025
[80]

Generative quan- tum combinatorial optimization by means of a novel con- ditional generative quantum eigensolver.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.16986, 2025

S. Minami, K. Nakaji, Y. Suzuki, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and T. Kadowaki. 2025. Generative quantum combinatorial optimization by means of a novel conditional generative quantum eigensolver. (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.16 986 arXiv: 2501.16986[quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.