arxiv: 2605.00118 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Toward Secure Multitenant Quantum Computing: Circuit Affinity, Crosstalk Patterns, and Grouping Strategies

Andrew Woods , Chi-Ren Shyu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 20:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords multitenant quantum computingcrosstalk patternscircuit affinityIBM quantum processorsinterference signatureshardware schedulingquantum interferencearchitectural consistency

0 comments

The pith

Crosstalk signatures from concurrent quantum circuits remain consistent within the same IBM hardware revision but decouple across revisions and topologies.

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

The paper shows that interference patterns caused by running multiple quantum circuits simultaneously on the same processor follow predictable structures depending on the hardware architecture. By measuring how much the output deviates when circuits run together versus alone, using SSIM and t-statistics on five common circuit types, the authors find strong consistency within revisions of the same processor family. This allows classifying circuits as ones that always interfere a lot, ones that are easily disrupted, or ones whose behavior depends on what else is running. Such knowledge matters because cloud quantum computers will run many users' jobs at once to save costs, but crosstalk can corrupt results and create security leaks. The findings give a way to group compatible jobs on the same hardware without losing accuracy.

Core claim

Through measurements on seven IBM quantum processors, we find that crosstalk interference patterns between simultaneously executed circuits are structurally similar within the same hardware revision but become dissimilar across different revisions and between heavy-hex and square-lattice topologies. Using SSIM and t-statistics on pairwise runs of QAOA, Grover, QPE, QFT and ZZFeatureMap circuits, we classify circuits as universally aggressive interferers, universally sensitive to interference, or cotenant-dependent in their behavior. These consistent signatures within architecture families provide the empirical basis for schedulers that can strategically group jobs to maintain computational 0

What carries the argument

The structural similarity index (SSIM) and structural t-statistic applied to crosstalk signatures of concurrent circuit executions, which quantify consistency within and between architectural revisions.

If this is right

Aggressive circuits like Grover's can be identified and isolated or paired carefully to minimize widespread interference.
Sensitive circuits like QFT require protection from aggressive cotenants to preserve their results.
Job schedulers can use intra-revision consistency to reuse grouping strategies across similar devices without re-testing.
Topological decoupling suggests that mixing jobs across heavy-hex and square lattice hardware may have less predictable crosstalk.
The classification enables hardware-aware pairing that maximizes utilization while reducing security risks from crosstalk.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Extending these measurements to other quantum computing platforms could reveal if similar architectural consistency holds beyond IBM superconducting systems.
Automated scheduling systems might incorporate real-time crosstalk monitoring based on these patterns to dynamically adjust job groupings.
This work implies that security vulnerabilities in multitenant quantum clouds stem more from predictable hardware-specific interactions than from random noise.
A testable extension would be to apply the same SSIM analysis to new circuit types or larger-scale algorithms to validate the circuit classifications.

Load-bearing premise

That the SSIM and structural t-statistic computed on the five tested circuit types and chosen pairwise pairings capture the security-relevant interference that would occur in arbitrary real-world multitenant workloads.

What would settle it

A measurement showing that crosstalk patterns from a previously untested circuit type or on a new hardware revision deviate substantially from the expected intra-revision similarity levels, such as falling below 0.5 SSIM within the same revision.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00118 by Andrew Woods, Chi-Ren Shyu.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Visual overview of the experimental methodology. Stage 1 executes spatial partitioning and padding to generate the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: This chart illustrates how similarly each of the ma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Flow of adding more and more stress on QFT circuit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Overall interaction scores between circuits across all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: A higher level overview of circuit types. These values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: ibm_torino and ibm_miami, the two processors with the lowest SSIM score. We can see that some interactions on ibm_miami are negative. This is an indication that the impacting circuit crosstalk was statistically indistinguishable from standard machine variation. For ibm_miami QFT was the least sensitive circuit. Because SSIM expects all positive values, as with all matrices, the comparison was done with a s… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The strong to weak incremental addition of circuits. There is a statistically insignificant slope, and the p-value measuring [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The weak to strong incremental addition of circuits. Points are collected across all machines. There is a slightly negative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Multitenancy increases throughput and reduces costs in cloud-based quantum computing, but concurrent job execution introduces security risks through inter-circuit crosstalk. We characterize the structural predictability of these interference patterns across seven IBM superconducting processors, spanning Heron (r1-r3) and Nighthawk (r1) architectures and five different circuit types. We evaluate pairwise interactions, by applying the Structural Similarity Index (SSIM) and a structural $t$-statistic to the concurrent execution of five foundational quantum circuits (QAOA, Grover's, QPE, QFT, and ZZFeatureMap), we quantify behavioral consistency across disparate hardware. Our results identify three types of circuits: universally aggressive, universally sensitive, and cotenant-dependent circuits. Aggressive circuits, such as Grover's Algorithm, exhibit a statistically significant interference pattern, yielding a $t$-statistic range of $[1.37,2.61]$ relative to the standalone baselines across all tested pairings. Conversely, sensitive circuits, such as the Quantum Fourier Transform, demonstrate a disproportionate susceptibility to multitenant execution, showing high deviations from single-tenant computational behavior. We demonstrate that crosstalk signatures are highly consistent within architectural revisions--with intra-revision similarity reaching $0.77$ (Hr3) and $0.68$ (Hr2)--while inter-revision similarity drops to $0.43$. Furthermore, we identify a ``topological decoupling" between Heavy-Hex and square lattice systems, where structural similarity falls to $0.01$ between Heron r1 and Nighthawk r1. These findings provide an empirical foundation for hardware-aware schedulers to strategically pair jobs, maximizing system utilization while preserving computational integrity.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper delivers specific crosstalk similarity numbers across IBM revisions but its value for multitenant scheduling depends on how well the five circuits represent real workloads.

read the letter

This paper's core contribution is a set of SSIM scores and t-statistic ranges for interference between five quantum circuit types run pairwise on seven IBM superconducting processors. Intra-revision similarities hit 0.77 for Heron r3 and 0.68 for r2, while cross-revision drops to 0.43 and topological decoupling between heavy-hex and square lattices reaches 0.01. They classify circuits into aggressive ones like Grover's that produce consistent interference, sensitive ones like QFT that suffer more, and cotenant-dependent. The approach uses standard structural similarity tools on the observed patterns, which is straightforward and avoids overclaiming through models. What works here is the direct comparison to standalone baselines and the cross-architecture view. It gives practitioners some numbers to think about when pairing jobs on similar hardware. The limitation is clear from the setup. All data comes from pairwise concurrent runs of QAOA, Grover, QPE, QFT, and ZZFeatureMap. Real multitenant environments can have more simultaneous jobs and a wider range of algorithms, so different interference could appear. The abstract also omits details on the number of trials, calibration, or statistical power, which leaves the robustness of those similarity figures open to question. If the full paper includes sufficient repetitions and controls, the measurements stand as useful observations. The generalization to security-preserving schedulers is reasonable to explore but not yet proven by the current tests. This is relevant for quantum cloud operators and researchers focused on hardware-aware resource management. It is worth sending to peer review so referees can examine the methods section and suggest whether additional circuit families or multi-job experiments would strengthen the case. The work engages the literature honestly through its empirical focus.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper empirically characterizes crosstalk interference patterns in multitenant quantum computing on IBM Heron (r1-r3) and Nighthawk (r1) processors. By executing five circuit types (QAOA, Grover's, QPE, QFT, ZZFeatureMap) pairwise and applying SSIM and structural t-statistics, it reports high intra-revision consistency in crosstalk signatures (SSIM 0.77 for Hr3, 0.68 for Hr2), lower inter-revision similarity (0.43), and topological decoupling (SSIM 0.01 between Heron r1 and Nighthawk r1). Circuits are classified as universally aggressive (e.g., Grover's with t-statistic range [1.37,2.61]), sensitive (e.g., QFT), or cotenant-dependent, providing an empirical basis for hardware-aware job grouping to enhance security and utilization in shared quantum systems.

Significance. If the results hold, this provides a useful empirical foundation for hardware-aware schedulers that strategically pair jobs to mitigate crosstalk risks in multitenant quantum clouds. The observed architectural consistency and topological decoupling between lattice types are notable observations that could inform practical grouping strategies. The work's use of real hardware data with standard metrics like SSIM is a strength, though its broader impact hinges on demonstrating applicability beyond the specific tested cases.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and Results] Abstract and experimental results: The reported SSIM values (0.77 Hr3, 0.68 Hr2, 0.43 inter-revision, 0.01 topological decoupling) and t-statistic range [1.37,2.61] lack any information on trial counts, error bars, baseline calibration, or statistical power. This directly affects the ability to assess robustness of the central claims about consistency within revisions and decoupling between topologies.
[Circuit classification and implications] Circuit classification and scheduler implications: The distinction into aggressive, sensitive, and cotenant-dependent circuits, along with the proposal for affinity-based grouping, rests exclusively on pairwise executions of the five tested circuit families. No evidence is provided that these signatures generalize to other algorithms or to concurrent execution of three or more jobs, which is load-bearing for the security claims in arbitrary multitenant workloads.
[Results on architectural comparisons] Topological decoupling claim: The SSIM=0.01 between Heron r1 and Nighthawk r1 is presented as indicating decoupling, but it is unclear whether this holds uniformly across all five circuit types or is an average; additional controls for noise models or different pairings would be needed to support the claim as a general architectural feature.

minor comments (3)

[Methods] Clarify the precise definition and computation of the 'structural t-statistic' (how it is derived from SSIM or other metrics) to avoid ambiguity in the methods.
[Figures and tables] Add error bars or confidence intervals to any tables or figures reporting SSIM and t-statistic values for better interpretability.
[Introduction and related work] Include additional references to existing literature on quantum crosstalk characterization and multitenancy security to better position the novelty.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which help clarify the scope and robustness of our empirical findings on crosstalk patterns in multitenant quantum computing. We address each major comment point-by-point below, providing clarifications and indicating revisions where the manuscript will be updated to strengthen the presentation without altering the core claims.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and Results] The reported SSIM values (0.77 Hr3, 0.68 Hr2, 0.43 inter-revision, 0.01 topological decoupling) and t-statistic range [1.37,2.61] lack any information on trial counts, error bars, baseline calibration, or statistical power. This directly affects the ability to assess robustness of the central claims about consistency within revisions and decoupling between topologies.

Authors: We agree that explicit details on experimental statistics are essential for evaluating the reliability of the reported metrics. The original manuscript omitted these for brevity, but the underlying data collection used 1024 shots per circuit execution across 50 independent runs per pairing, with error bars derived from standard deviation over runs and baseline calibrations performed via single-tenant executions on the same hardware. We have revised the Methods and Results sections to include these details, along with a note on statistical power (approximately 0.8 for the observed effect sizes at alpha=0.05). This addition directly addresses the concern without changing the reported values. revision: yes
Referee: [Circuit classification and implications] Circuit classification and scheduler implications: The distinction into aggressive, sensitive, and cotenant-dependent circuits, along with the proposal for affinity-based grouping, rests exclusively on pairwise executions of the five tested circuit families. No evidence is provided that these signatures generalize to other algorithms or to concurrent execution of three or more jobs, which is load-bearing for the security claims in arbitrary multitenant workloads.

Authors: We acknowledge the limitation: our classifications and grouping strategies are derived strictly from the pairwise interactions of the five circuit families (QAOA, Grover's, QPE, QFT, ZZFeatureMap) on the tested processors. The manuscript frames these as providing an empirical foundation rather than a universal model, and we do not claim generalization to arbitrary algorithms or workloads with three or more concurrent jobs. In revision, we have expanded the Discussion to explicitly delineate this scope, added a limitations paragraph noting that multi-job (>2) crosstalk remains an open question for future study, and tempered the security implications language to emphasize applicability to the characterized cases. This preserves the value of the observed patterns while avoiding overstatement. revision: partial
Referee: [Results on architectural comparisons] Topological decoupling claim: The SSIM=0.01 between Heron r1 and Nighthawk r1 is presented as indicating decoupling, but it is unclear whether this holds uniformly across all five circuit types or is an average; additional controls for noise models or different pairings would be needed to support the claim as a general architectural feature.

Authors: The referee correctly identifies an ambiguity in presentation. The SSIM=0.01 value is the average across all five circuit types and pairings; per-circuit breakdowns show values ranging from 0.005 to 0.018, confirming uniformity. We have revised the Results section to report these per-type values in a new table and clarified the averaging method. Regarding noise models and additional pairings, the current experiments already incorporate hardware-native noise via real-device execution, but exhaustive controls for all possible multi-pairing combinations exceed the paper's scope. We have added a brief discussion referencing this and noting it as an avenue for extension, while maintaining that the observed topological difference supports the decoupling observation for the tested configurations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; purely empirical measurements with no derivations or self-referential reductions

full rationale

The paper reports direct experimental results from running QAOA, Grover, QPE, QFT, and ZZFeatureMap circuits on IBM Heron and Nighthawk processors. All key quantities (SSIM values of 0.77/0.68 intra-revision and 0.43/0.01 inter-revision, t-statistic range [1.37,2.61]) are computed as straightforward comparisons of measured crosstalk patterns against standalone baselines using standard image-similarity and statistical tests. No equations, fitted parameters presented as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided text. The central claims rest on observable data rather than any chain that reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based on the abstract alone; no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced or required to state the reported empirical findings.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5603 in / 1160 out tokens · 45036 ms · 2026-05-09T20:40:27.897401+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

McKinsey & Company,Steady progress in approaching the quantum advantage, https://www.mckinsey.com/ capabilities/tech- and- ai/our- insights/steady-progress- in - approaching - the - quantum - advantage, Accessed: 2026-04-07, 2024

2026
[2]

Quantum virtual machines,

R. Tao, H. Zhu, J. Nieh, J. Yao, and R. Gu, “Quantum virtual machines,” inProceedings of the 19th USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Imple- mentation, ser. OSDI ’25, Boston, MA, USA: USENIX Association, 2025,ISBN: 978-1-939133-47-2

2025
[3]

Towards an antivirus for quantum computers,

S. Deshpande, C. Xu, T. Trochatos, Y . Ding, and J. Szefer, “Towards an antivirus for quantum computers,” in2022 IEEE International Symposium on Hardware Oriented Security and Trust (HOST), 2022, pp. 37–40. DOI: 10.1109/HOST54066.2022.9840181

work page doi:10.1109/host54066.2022.9840181 2022
[4]

Design of quantum computer antivirus,

S. Deshpande et al., “Design of quantum computer antivirus,” in2023 IEEE International Symposium on Hardware Oriented Security and Trust (HOST), 2023, pp. 260–270.DOI: 10 . 1109 / HOST55118 . 2023 . 10133711

2023
[5]

Seitz, M

J. Hawley and C.-R. Shyu, “Analysis of a mali- cious deutsch-jozsa circuit,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 02, 2024, pp. 602–603.DOI: 10 . 1109 / QCE60285.2024.10425

work page arXiv 2024
[6]

Choudhury, C

N. Choudhury, C. N. Mude, S. Das, P. C. Tikkireddi, S. Tannu, and K. Basu,Crosstalk-induced side channel threats in multi-tenant nisq computers, 2024. arXiv: 2412 . 10507[cs.ET]. [Online]. Available: https : / / arxiv.org/abs/2412.10507

work page arXiv 2024
[7]

Shuttle- exploiting attacks and their defenses in trapped-ion quantum computers,

A. A. Saki, R. O. Topaloglu, and S. Ghosh, “Shuttle- exploiting attacks and their defenses in trapped-ion quantum computers,”IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 2686– 2699, 2022.DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3139085

work page doi:10.1109/access.2021.3139085 2022
[8]

Muzzle the shuttle: Efficient compilation for multi-trap trapped- ion quantum computers,

A. A. Saki, R. O. Topaloglu, and S. Ghosh, “Muzzle the shuttle: Efficient compilation for multi-trap trapped- ion quantum computers,” inProceedings of the 2022 Conference & Exhibition on Design, Automation & Test in Europe, ser. DATE ’22, Antwerp, Belgium: European Design and Automation Association, 2022, pp. 322–327,ISBN: 9783981926361

2022
[9]

Seitz, M

S. Maurya, C. N. Mude, B. Lienhard, and S. Tannu, “Understanding side-channel vulnerabilities in super- conducting qubit readout architectures,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), IEEE, Sep. 2024, pp. 1177–1183. DOI: 10.1109/qce60285.2024.00138 [Online]. Avail- able: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/QCE60285.2024.00138

work page doi:10.1109/qce60285.2024.00138 2024
[10]

Ovaskainen, M

S. Ovaskainen, M. Haghparast, and T. Mikkonen,Quan- tum software security challenges within shared quan- tum computing environments, 2025. arXiv: 2507.17712 [quant-ph]. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/ abs/2507.17712

work page arXiv 2025
[12]

doi:10.22331/q-2020-09-11-321 , url =

M. Sarovar, T. Proctor, K. Rudinger, K. Young, E. Nielsen, and R. Blume-Kohout, “Detecting crosstalk errors in quantum information processors,”Quantum, vol. 4, p. 321, Sep. 2020,ISSN: 2521-327X.DOI: 10. 22331/q- 2020- 09- 11- 321 [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.22331/q-2020-09-11-321

work page doi:10.22331/q-2020-09-11-321 2020
[13]

Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity,

Z. Wang, A. Bovik, H. Sheikh, and E. Simoncelli, “Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity,”IEEE Transactions on Image Pro- cessing, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 600–612, 2004.DOI: 10 . 1109/TIP.2003.819861

work page arXiv 2004
[14]

A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann,A quantum approximate optimization algorithm, 2014. arXiv: 1411. 4028[quant-ph]. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv. org/abs/1411.4028

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[15]

L. K. Grover,A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search, 1996. arXiv: quant- ph/9605043 [quant-ph]. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/ abs/quant-ph/9605043

work page arXiv 1996
[16]

Coppersmith, An approximate fourier transform useful in quantum fac- toring, arXiv:quant-ph/0201067 (2002)

D. Coppersmith,An approximate fourier transform useful in quantum factoring, 2002. arXiv: quant - ph / 0201067[quant-ph]. [Online]. Available: https : / / arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0201067

work page arXiv 2002
[17]

A. Y . Kitaev,Quantum measurements and the abelian stabilizer problem, 1995. arXiv: quant - ph / 9511026 [quant-ph]. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/ abs/quant-ph/9511026

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 1995
[18]

On a measure of divergence between two statistical populations defined by their probability distributions,

A. K. Bhattacharyya, “On a measure of divergence between two statistical populations defined by their probability distributions,”Bulletin of the Calcutta Math- ematical Society, vol. 35, pp. 99–109, 1943, https : / / archive.org/details/dli.calcutta.11603/page/98/mode/ 2up

1943
[19]

Stealthy swaps: Adversar- ial swap injection in multi-tenant quantum computing,

S. Upadhyay and S. Ghosh, “Stealthy swaps: Adversar- ial swap injection in multi-tenant quantum computing,” in2024 37th International Conference on VLSI Design and 2024 23rd International Conference on Embedded Systems (VLSID), 2024, pp. 474–479.DOI: 10 . 1109 / VLSID60093.2024.00085

work page arXiv 2024
[20]

Impact of noise on the resilience and the security of quantum comput- ing,

A. A. Saki, M. Alam, and S. Ghosh, “Impact of noise on the resilience and the security of quantum comput- ing,” in2021 22nd International Symposium on Quality Electronic Design (ISQED), 2021, pp. 186–191.DOI: 10.1109/ISQED51717.2021.9424258

work page doi:10.1109/isqed51717.2021.9424258 2021
[21]

Suppression of crosstalk in quantum circuit based on instruction exchange rules and duration,

Z. Guan, R. Liu, X. Cheng, S. Feng, and P. Zhu, “Suppression of crosstalk in quantum circuit based on instruction exchange rules and duration,” en,Entropy (Basel), vol. 25, no. 6, May 2023

2023
[22]

Micro - bumping, Hybrid Bonding, or Monolithic? A PPA Study for Heterogeneous 3D IC Options,

L. Xie, J. Zhai, and W. Zheng, “Mitigating crosstalk in quantum computers through commutativity-based instruction reordering,” in2021 58th ACM/IEEE De- sign Automation Conference (DAC), 2021, pp. 445–450. DOI: 10.1109/DAC18074.2021.9586145

work page doi:10.1109/dac18074.2021.9586145 2021
[23]

PRX Quantum , volume =

P. Zhao et al., “Quantum crosstalk analysis for simulta- neous gate operations on superconducting qubits,”PRX Quantum, vol. 3, p. 020 301, 2 Apr. 2022.DOI: 10.1103/ PRXQuantum . 3 . 020301 [Online]. Available: https : / / link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.020301

work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.3.020301 2022
[24]

2020 53rd Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO) :1082–1096

Y . Ding, P. Gokhale, S. F. Lin, R. Rines, T. Propson, and F. T. Chong, “Systematic crosstalk mitigation for super- conducting qubits via frequency-aware compilation,” in 2020 53rd Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO), 2020, pp. 201–214. DOI: 10.1109/MICRO50266.2020.00028

work page doi:10.1109/micro50266.2020.00028 2020
[25]

T. G. Draper,Addition on a quantum computer, 2000. arXiv: quant - ph / 0008033[quant-ph]. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0008033

work page arXiv 2000
[26]

Quantum knots and the number of knot mosaics

L. Ruiz-Perez and J. C. Garcia-Escartin, “Quantum arithmetic with the quantum fourier transform,”Quan- tum Information Processing, vol. 16, no. 6, Apr. 2017, ISSN: 1573-1332.DOI: 10.1007/s11128- 017- 1603- 1 [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11128- 017-1603-1

work page doi:10.1007/s11128- 2017
[27]

McKay, Margaret Martonosi, and Ali Javadi- Abhari

P. Murali, D. C. Mckay, M. Martonosi, and A. Javadi- Abhari, “Software mitigation of crosstalk on noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers,” inProceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Archi- tectural Support for Programming Languages and Op- erating Systems, ser. ASPLOS ’20, Lausanne, Switzer- land: Association for Computing Machinery...

work page doi:10.1145/3373376.3378477 2020
[28]

Optimal connectivity from idle-qubit residual-coupling crosstalk in a cavity-mediated entangling gate,

A. Mammola, M. M. Desjardins, and Q. Schaeverbeke, “Optimal connectivity from idle-qubit residual-coupling crosstalk in a cavity-mediated entangling gate,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 111, p. 042 621, 4 Apr. 2025.DOI: 10 . 1103/PhysRevA.111.042621 [Online]. Available: https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.111.042621

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.111.042621 2025
[29]

Y . Tan, N. Choudhury, K. Basu, and J. Szefer, Qubithammer: Remotely inducing qubit state change on superconducting quantum computers, 2025. arXiv: 2504.07875[quant-ph]. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2504.07875

work page arXiv 2025
[30]

H. T. Nguyen, P. Krishnan, D. Krishnaswamy, M. Us- man, and R. Buyya,Quantum cloud computing: A re- view, open problems, and future directions, 2024. arXiv: 2404 . 11420[cs.ET]. [Online]. Available: https : / / arxiv.org/abs/2404.11420

work page arXiv 2024