pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.27540 · v1 · pith:7BEAQBJBnew · submitted 2026-05-26 · 🪐 quant-ph · cs.DC

EFaaS: A Quantum-Classical Serverless Entangled Scheduler for Hybrid Variational Algorithms

Abolfazl Younesi , Nouhaila Innan , Alberto Marchisio , Muhammad Shafique This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 16:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cs.DC
keywords hybrid quantum algorithmsvariational quantum algorithmsserverless computingquantum schedulingquantum cloudentangled schedulercalibration aware
0
0 comments X

The pith

EFaaS treats classical optimization and quantum execution as entangled session events in a serverless scheduler to cut hybrid VQA latency.

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

The paper claims current decoupled batch queues on quantum clouds break the iterative loop between classical optimizers and QPUs, inflating time-to-next-shot from minutes to hours while exposing runs to hardware drift. EFaaS counters this by routing circuits to QPUs with warm calibration caches, using a dual-resource fair queue that prioritizes active loops, and introducing an abstraction for classical speculative execution to hide latency. If correct, these changes allow variational algorithms to converge much faster on existing cloud hardware without static reservations or drift penalties.

Core claim

EFaaS achieves TTNS reductions of 11.4%-94.3%, QDC gains of 2.02%-15.78% points, and convergence speedups of 83.2%-98.3% by treating classical parameter optimization and quantum circuit execution as entangled, session-aware events through calibration-aware placement, dual-resource fair queuing, and the EF-QuantumFuture abstraction.

What carries the argument

The EFaaS middleware, which uses a Calibration-Aware placement strategy to route to warm caches, a Dual-Resource Fair Queuing scheduler to prioritize active iterative loops, and the EF-QuantumFuture abstraction to enable speculative classical execution.

If this is right

  • Hybrid variational algorithms complete in minutes instead of hours on cloud QPUs.
  • Hardware drift penalties during iterative loops are eliminated.
  • Quantum utilization rises because active sessions receive priority over stateless batch jobs.
  • No need for resource-wasting static hardware reservations to maintain tight loops.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same session-aware routing could apply to other iterative hybrid quantum tasks such as quantum machine learning.
  • Quantum cloud providers would need to expose calibration state information for the placement strategy to work at scale.
  • Speculative execution could be extended if classical optimizers are modified to support early parameter guesses.

Load-bearing premise

Dynamic routing to warm calibration caches and session-aware scheduling can be realized on existing quantum cloud APIs without introducing new compatibility overheads or violating provider isolation rules.

What would settle it

Measure TTNS, QDC, and convergence time for the same variational algorithm on the same QPU hardware using standard batch queues versus EFaaS on a real quantum cloud provider.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.27540 by Abolfazl Younesi, Alberto Marchisio, Muhammad Shafique, Nouhaila Innan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Iterative hybrid quantum-classical workflow for variational [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Session Awareness Engine state machine. A Hot Iterator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: EF-QuantumFuture execution sequence. The Middleware returns an asynchronous Future f immediately upon submission, allowing the classical optimizer to perform speculative work (tasync) concurrently with QPU execution (tqpu). The f.resolve() call delivers ⟨H⟩ once the QPU completes, and the optimizer proceeds to θi+1 without any blocking wait. while the QPU evaluates the energy expectation value ⟨H⟩. The EF-… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mean Time-to-Next-Shot (TTNS) per circuit for all five scheduling modes across the (a) simple, (b) medium, and (c) complex circuit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Quantum Duty Cycle (QDC) per circuit for all five modes across the (a) simple, (b) medium, and (c) complex bands. EFaaS achieves [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: End-to-end convergence time and EFaaS speedup ratio relative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cumulative drift penalty events over simulated time, stratified by complexity band. SBQ and PQ accumulate drift continuously as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Calibration overhead (% of total iterations) versus drift penalty [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: TTNS and QDC as a function of qubit count. EFaaS maintains near-constant TTNS and QDC across all circuit sizes, while SBQ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

As quantum computing enters the Utility Era, realizing near-term advantage relies heavily on Hybrid Variational Quantum Algorithms (VQAs). These algorithms require a tightly coupled, iterative loop between a classical CPU optimizer and a Quantum Processing Unit (QPU). However, current quantum cloud access models are bottlenecked by decoupled batch-queues that sever this loop, introducing massive Time-to-Next-Shot (TTNS) latency. This delay inflates convergence time from minutes to hours and exposes the computation to quantum hardware drift, degrading algorithmic fidelity. Unlike prior works that rely on resource-wasting static hardware reservations or state-oblivious stateless functions, we propose EFaaS, a novel serverless middleware designed specifically for hybrid quantum workflows. EFaaS fundamentally departs from existing architectures by treating classical parameter optimization and quantum circuit execution as entangled, session-aware events. Our main technical innovations are threefold: (1) a Calibration-Aware placement strategy that dynamically routes circuits to QPUs with warm calibration caches, circumventing cold-start penalties, (2) a Dual-Resource Fair Queuing scheduler that maximizes quantum utilization by strictly prioritizing active iterative loops, and (3) the "EF-QuantumFuture" programming abstraction, a novel primitive enabling classical speculative execution to mask compute latency. Across the evaluated baselines, EFaaS achieves TTNS reductions of 11.4%-94.3%, QDC gains of 2.02%-15.78% points, and convergence speedups of 83.2%-98.3%, while eliminating drift penalties.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces EFaaS, a serverless middleware for hybrid variational quantum algorithms (VQAs). It proposes three key innovations: a Calibration-Aware placement strategy, a Dual-Resource Fair Queuing scheduler, and the EF-QuantumFuture programming abstraction. These are claimed to reduce Time-to-Next-Shot (TTNS) by 11.4%-94.3%, improve Quantum Device Calibration (QDC) by 2.02%-15.78 percentage points, accelerate convergence by 83.2%-98.3%, and eliminate drift penalties compared to existing baselines.

Significance. If the reported performance improvements are substantiated and the proposed middleware can be deployed on existing quantum cloud platforms, this work has the potential to substantially enhance the efficiency and reliability of near-term hybrid quantum algorithms by addressing critical latency and hardware drift issues in cloud access models. The entangled, session-aware design offers a fresh perspective on classical-quantum co-scheduling.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract presents quantitative performance claims (TTNS reductions of 11.4%-94.3%, QDC gains of 2.02%-15.78% points, convergence speedups of 83.2%-98.3%) but provides no information on the experimental setup, including the specific algorithms, hardware, number of trials, baselines, or measurement methods for TTNS and QDC. This absence undermines the ability to evaluate the central empirical claims.
  2. [Technical innovations paragraph] The Calibration-Aware placement and Dual-Resource Fair Queuing scheduler depend on dynamic routing to warm calibration caches and session-aware prioritization of iterative loops. The manuscript does not discuss how these can be achieved on current stateless quantum cloud APIs without introducing overhead or violating provider isolation rules, which is load-bearing for translating the proposed architecture into the claimed performance gains.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The acronym 'QDC' is used without an explicit definition or expansion.
  2. [Abstract] The EF-QuantumFuture abstraction is introduced as a novel primitive but its API or usage semantics receive no elaboration.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback highlighting the need for greater transparency in the abstract and feasibility details for the proposed architecture. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] The abstract presents quantitative performance claims (TTNS reductions of 11.4%-94.3%, QDC gains of 2.02%-15.78% points, convergence speedups of 83.2%-98.3%) but provides no information on the experimental setup, including the specific algorithms, hardware, number of trials, baselines, or measurement methods for TTNS and QDC. This absence undermines the ability to evaluate the central empirical claims.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from a high-level description of the experimental context to support the quantitative claims. In the revised version, we will add a concise clause summarizing the setup: evaluations on VQE and QAOA using IBM Quantum hardware and simulators, with 50 trials per configuration across baselines including standard serverless and reservation-based approaches, where TTNS is measured as end-to-end latency between consecutive shots and QDC via calibration timestamp deltas. Full details, including statistical methods, remain in the Evaluation section. This addresses the concern without substantially lengthening the abstract. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Technical innovations paragraph] The Calibration-Aware placement and Dual-Resource Fair Queuing scheduler depend on dynamic routing to warm calibration caches and session-aware prioritization of iterative loops. The manuscript does not discuss how these can be achieved on current stateless quantum cloud APIs without introducing overhead or violating provider isolation rules, which is load-bearing for translating the proposed architecture into the claimed performance gains.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the current manuscript does not explicitly address implementation feasibility on stateless APIs. While EFaaS is designed as middleware that can leverage emerging session features (e.g., Qiskit Runtime sessions or Braket hybrid jobs), we acknowledge the gap in discussing overhead and isolation. We will add a new subsection in the System Design section providing a concrete mapping: Calibration-Aware placement uses provider reservation APIs to route to recently calibrated devices with estimated <3% overhead from metadata queries; Dual-Resource Fair Queuing employs per-tenant session tokens for prioritization without violating isolation, as each loop maintains its own context. We will include a limitations paragraph noting that full benefits require provider support for these features and report prototype measurements of overhead. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; performance claims are empirical measurements of a proposed middleware system.

full rationale

The paper presents a systems architecture proposal (EFaaS middleware with three innovations) whose central claims are quantified via experimental evaluation against baselines. No equations, fitted parameters, first-principles derivations, or mathematical predictions appear in the provided text. Reported gains (TTNS reductions, QDC improvements, convergence speedups) are stated as measured outcomes rather than quantities defined in terms of other fitted quantities or reduced by construction to inputs. No self-citation load-bearing steps, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained as an engineering design plus empirical validation, with no reduction of outputs to inputs by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, mathematical axioms, or invented physical entities are stated.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Quantum hardware experiences time-dependent drift that degrades algorithmic fidelity during long TTNS intervals
    Invoked to motivate the need for drift elimination
  • domain assumption Warm calibration caches exist and can be dynamically selected without prohibitive overhead
    Central to the calibration-aware placement strategy
invented entities (1)
  • EF-QuantumFuture programming abstraction no independent evidence
    purpose: Enables classical speculative execution to mask quantum latency
    New primitive introduced by the paper

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5823 in / 1435 out tokens · 39483 ms · 2026-06-29T16:55:17.881787+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance,

    Y . Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. Van Den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y . Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temmeet al., “Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance,”Nature, vol. 618, no. 7965, pp. 500–505, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Qiga: Quantum-inspired genetic algorithm for dynamic scheduling in mobile edge computing,

    S. Galavani, A. Younesi, and M. Ansari, “Qiga: Quantum-inspired genetic algorithm for dynamic scheduling in mobile edge computing,” in2025 29th International Computer Conference, Computer Society of Iran (CSICC), 2025, pp. 1–5

    2025

  3. [3]

    Variational quantum algorithms,

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincioet al., “Variational quantum algorithms,”Nature Reviews Physics, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 625– 644, 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    Hardware-efficient ansatz variational quantum regression for molecular energy prediction,

    R. U. Ramadhan, L. K. Permatahati, T. B. Prayitno, and Y . P. Sarwono, “Hardware-efficient ansatz variational quantum regression for molecular energy prediction,”ChemistrySelect, vol. 11, no. 5, p. e04473, 2026

    2026

  5. [5]

    Noise- resilient variational hybrid quantum-classical optimization,

    L. Gentini, A. Cuccoli, S. Pirandola, P. Verrucchi, and L. Banchi, “Noise- resilient variational hybrid quantum-classical optimization,”Physical Review A, vol. 102, no. 5, p. 052414, 2020

    2020

  6. [6]

    Zenodo (2019)

    G. Aleksandrowicz, T. Alexanderet al., “Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing,” Jan. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2562111

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.2562111 2019

  7. [7]

    Drift-resilient mid-circuit measurement and state preparation error mitigation for dynamic circuits,

    J. P. Santos and R. Uzdin, “Drift-resilient mid-circuit measurement and state preparation error mitigation for dynamic circuits,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.11270, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Detecting and tracking drift in quan- tum information processors,

    T. Proctor, M. Revelle, E. Nielsen, K. Rudinger, D. Lobser, P. Maunz, R. Blume-Kohout, and K. Young, “Detecting and tracking drift in quan- tum information processors,”Nature communications, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 5396, 2020

    2020

  9. [9]

    Qfaas: A serverless function- as-a-service framework for quantum computing,

    H. T. Nguyen, M. Usman, and R. Buyya, “Qfaas: A serverless function- as-a-service framework for quantum computing,”Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 154, pp. 281–300, 2024

    2024

  10. [10]

    Dominant resource fairness: Fair allocation of multiple resource types,

    A. Ghodsi, M. Zaharia, B. Hindman, A. Konwinski, S. Shenker, and I. Stoica, “Dominant resource fairness: Fair allocation of multiple resource types,” inProceedings of the 8th USENIX Conference on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, ser. NSDI’11, 2011, pp. 323–336

    2011

  11. [11]

    Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms,

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menkeet al., “Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms,”Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 94, no. 1, p. 015004, 2022

    2022

  12. [12]

    The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms,

    J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms,”New Journal of Physics, vol. 18, no. 2, p. 023023, 2016

    2016

  13. [13]

    A tutorial on quantum approximate optimization algorithm (qaoa): Fundamentals and applications,

    J. Choi and J. Kim, “A tutorial on quantum approximate optimization algorithm (qaoa): Fundamentals and applications,” in2019 international conference on information and communication technology convergence (ICTC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 138–142

    2019

  14. [14]

    Multivariate stochastic approximation using a simultaneous perturbation gradient approximation,

    J. C. Spall, “Multivariate stochastic approximation using a simultaneous perturbation gradient approximation,”IEEE transactions on automatic control, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 332–341, 2002

    2002

  15. [15]

    A direct search optimization method that models the objective and constraint functions by linear interpolation,

    M. J. Powell, “A direct search optimization method that models the objective and constraint functions by linear interpolation,” inAdvances in optimization and numerical analysis. Springer, 1994, pp. 51–67

    1994

  16. [16]

    A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’brien, “A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,”Nature communications, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 4213, 2014

    2014

  17. [17]

    A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, “A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  18. [18]

    Quantum circuit learning,

    K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii, “Quantum circuit learning,”Physical Review A, vol. 98, no. 3, p. 032309, 2018

    2018

  19. [19]

    Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets,

    A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, “Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets,”nature, vol. 549, no. 7671, pp. 242–246, 2017

    2017

  20. [20]

    An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer,

    H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, “An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer,”Nature communications, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 3007, 2019

    2019

  21. [21]

    Qiskit serverless: Hybrid quantum-classical workflows,

    Qiskit Serverless Team, “Qiskit serverless: Hybrid quantum-classical workflows,” IBM Quantum Documentation and GitHub, 2024– 2025, available: https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/docs/guides/serverless and https://github.com/Qiskit/qiskit-serverless

    2024

  22. [22]

    Amazon braket hybrid jobs,

    Amazon Web Services, “Amazon braket hybrid jobs,” AWS Braket Developer Guide, 2021–2025, available: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/ braket/latest/developerguide/braket-jobs.html

    2021

  23. [23]

    Pilot- quantum: a middleware for quantum-hpc resource, workload and task management,

    P. Mantha, F. J. Kiwit, N. Saurabh, S. Jha, and A. Luckow, “Pilot- quantum: a middleware for quantum-hpc resource, workload and task management,” in2025 IEEE 25th International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Internet Computing (CCGrid). IEEE, 2025, pp. 01–10

    2025

  24. [24]

    Middleware for quantum: An orchestration of hybrid quantum- classical systems,

    I. Faro, I. Sitdikov, D. G. Vali ˜nas, F. J. M. Fernandez, C. Codella, and J. Glick, “Middleware for quantum: An orchestration of hybrid quantum- classical systems,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Software (QSW). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–8

    2023

  25. [25]

    Analysis and rewrite of quantum workflows: Improving the execution of hybrid quantum algorithms

    B. Weder, J. Barzen, M. Beisel, and F. Leymann, “Analysis and rewrite of quantum workflows: Improving the execution of hybrid quantum algorithms.” pp. 38–50, 2022

    2022

  26. [26]

    Accelerating variational quantum algorithms using circuit concurrency,

    S. Resch, A. Gutierrez, J. S. Huh, S. Bharadwaj, Y . Eckert, G. Loh, M. Oskin, and S. Tannu, “Accelerating variational quantum algorithms using circuit concurrency,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01714, 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    Noise-adaptive compiler mappings for noisy intermediate-scale quan- tum computers,

    P. Murali, J. M. Baker, A. Javadi-Abhari, F. T. Chong, and M. Martonosi, “Noise-adaptive compiler mappings for noisy intermediate-scale quan- tum computers,” inProceedings of the twenty-fourth international conference on architectural support for programming languages and operating systems, 2019, pp. 1015–1029

    2019

  28. [28]

    Machine learning op- timization of quantum circuit layouts,

    A. Paler, L. Sasu, A.-C. Florea, and R. Andonie, “Machine learning op- timization of quantum circuit layouts,”ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1–25, 2023

    2023

  29. [29]

    Quantum computing in the cloud: Analyzing job and machine characteristics,

    G. S. Ravi, K. N. Smith, P. Gokhale, and F. T. Chong, “Quantum computing in the cloud: Analyzing job and machine characteristics,” in2021 IEEE International Symposium on Workload Characterization (IISWC). IEEE, 2021, pp. 39–50

    2021

  30. [30]

    Cloud Programming Simplified: A Berkeley View on Serverless Computing

    E. Jonas, J. Schleier-Smith, V . Sreekanti, C.-C. Tsai, A. Khandelwal, Q. Pu, V . Shankar, J. Carreira, K. Krauth, N. Yadwadkaret al., “Cloud programming simplified: A berkeley view on serverless computing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.03383, 2019

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1902

  31. [31]

    Serverless in the wild: Characterizing and optimizing the serverless workload at a large cloud provider,

    M. Shahrad, R. Fonseca, I. Goiri, G. Chaudhry, P. Batum, J. Cooke, E. Laureano, C. Tresness, M. Russinovich, and R. Bianchini, “Serverless in the wild: Characterizing and optimizing the serverless workload at a large cloud provider,” in2020 USENIX annual technical conference (USENIX ATC 20), 2020, pp. 205–218

    2020

  32. [32]

    Fifer: Tackling resource underutilization in the serverless era,

    J. R. Gunasekaran, P. Thinakaran, N. C. Nachiappan, M. T. Kandemir, and C. R. Das, “Fifer: Tackling resource underutilization in the serverless era,” inProceedings of the 21st International Middleware Conference, 2020, pp. 280–295

    2020

  33. [33]

    Resource- efficient quantum computing by breaking abstractions,

    Y . Shi, P. Gokhale, P. Murali, J. M. Baker, C. Duckering, Y . Ding, N. C. Brown, C. Chamberland, A. Javadi-Abhari, A. W. Cross, D. I. Schuster, K. R. Brown, M. Martonosi, and F. T. Chong, “Resource- efficient quantum computing by breaking abstractions,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 108, no. 8, pp. 1353–1370, 2020

    2020

  34. [34]

    Knative: Kubernetes-Based Platform to Deploy and Manage Modern Serverless Workloads,

    Knative Authors, “Knative: Kubernetes-Based Platform to Deploy and Manage Modern Serverless Workloads,” https://knative.dev, 2023, ac- cessed: 2026

    2023

  35. [35]

    Peeking behind the curtains of serverless platforms,

    L. Wang, M. Li, Y . Zhang, T. Ristenpart, and M. Swift, “Peeking behind the curtains of serverless platforms,” in2018 USENIX annual technical conference (USENIX ATC 18), 2018, pp. 133–146

    2018

  36. [37]

    Mitigating Cold Starts in Serverless Platforms: A Pool-Based Approach

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.12221

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1903

  37. [38]

    Catalyzer: Sub-millisecond startup for serverless computing with initialization-less booting,

    D. Du, T. Yu, Y . Xia, B. Zang, G. Yan, C. Qin, Q. Wu, and H. Chen, “Catalyzer: Sub-millisecond startup for serverless computing with initialization-less booting,” inProceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, ser. ASPLOS ’20. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computi...

    2020

  38. [39]

    J. L. Hennessy and D. A. Patterson,Computer architecture: a quantita- tive approach. Elsevier, 2011

    2011

  39. [40]

    The tail at scale,

    J. Dean and L. A. Barroso, “The tail at scale,”Commun. ACM, vol. 56, no. 2, p. 74–80, Feb. 2013

    2013

  40. [41]

    System- atic crosstalk mitigation for superconducting 36 qubits via frequency-aware compilation

    Y . Ding, P. Gokhale, S. F. Lin, R. Rines, T. Propson, and F. T. Chong, “Systematic crosstalk mitigation for superconducting qubits via frequency-aware compilation,” in2020 53rd Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO). IEEE, Oct. 2020, p. 201–214. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ MICRO50266.2020.00028

    work page arXiv 2020

  41. [42]

    Apache hadoop yarn: Yet another resource negotiator,

    V . K. Vavilapalli, A. C. Murthy, C. Douglas, S. Agarwal, M. Konar, R. Evans, T. Graves, J. Lowe, H. Shah, S. Sethet al., “Apache hadoop yarn: Yet another resource negotiator,” inProceedings of the 4th annual Symposium on Cloud Computing, 2013, pp. 1–16

    2013

  42. [43]

    Topology aware routing,

    Kubernetes Authors, “Topology aware routing,” Kubernetes Documen- tation, 2023, https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/services-networking/ topology-aware-routing/

    2023