Adaptive Entanglement Management in Quantum Multi-Core Architectures

Anubhab Dutta; John Jose; Rajeswari Suance P S; Ruchika Gupta

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 17 references

Adaptive Entanglement Management in Quantum Multi-Core Architectures

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A traffic-aware policy for pre-generating entangled pairs between cores can cut inter-core teleportation latency by up to 61% compared to on-demand generation, with purification holding fidelity loss to about 6%.

desk verdict A plausible latency win for adaptive pre-generation, but missing hyperparameters and error bars make the ACGP advantage unverifiable as reported. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14592 v1 pith:OSD2MNEA submitted 2026-07-16 quant-ph

Rajeswari Suance P S , Anubhab Dutta , Ruchika Gupta , John Jose This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Hk03.67.Mn

keywords multi-corequantumprocessorsentanglementgenerationteleportationnetwork-on-chipadaptivepre-generationpurificationmeshtopologylatencyoptimization

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that the dominant bottleneck in inter-core communication for multi-core quantum processors is the probabilistic generation of entangled (EPR) pairs, which on-demand generation performs only after a teleportation request arrives. To overcome this, it proposes continuous background pre-generation of EPR pairs, and then an adaptive version (ACGP) that learns which neighboring cores actually communicate and biases pre-generation toward them. Using a discrete-event simulator on mesh topologies and several benchmark quantum circuits, it reports that ACGP lowers average teleportation latency by up to 61% relative to on-demand generation, with continuous pre-generation (CGP) in between. Pre-generated pairs lose fidelity while waiting in memory, but the paper shows entanglement purification recovers most of that fidelity with minimal latency cost. If these results transfer to real hardware, adaptive entanglement management becomes a practical layer for scalable multi-core quantum computing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the ACGP probability update rule (Eq. 1-2): each core tracks a probability distribution over neighbors; when it observes a teleportation path using neighbor i, it increments p_i by Δ, and when it finds pre-generated entanglement with neighbor j unused, it decrements p_j by Δ, then renormalizes. This turns background EPR pre-generation into a feedback loop that allocates scarce quantum memory and communication-qubit time to core pairs that are actually communicating. The companion protocol (Algorithms 1-2) runs the pre-generation handshake at each node, and purification is applied off the critical path to restore fidelity.

What would settle it

A direct falsifier would be a hardware or high-fidelity simulation experiment where ACGP, CGP, and ODG are run on the same circuits with coherence times varied (e.g., 10 µs to 10 ms). If ACGP's latency advantage over CGP shrinks monotonically as coherence time decreases and disappears below some threshold, the claim that adaptive pre-generation is the key enabler would be false; the advantage would be an artifact of storage patience. Alternatively, if the update step Δ is set to zero or to an adversarial value and ACGP's advantage vanishes, the learning mechanism is not doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that making entanglement pre-generation adaptive—rather than reactive (ODG) or uniformly proactive (CGP)—substantially improves communication efficiency in mesh-based multi-core quantum processors. ACGP maintains a per-neighbor probability table, updated by Eq. (1)-(2) to favor neighbors that appear in recent teleportation paths (set U) and penalize neighbors whose pre-generated pairs went unused (set V), then normalized. On benchmarks including QFT, Cuccaro and Draper adders, and MCTMV across mesh sizes from 2×1 to 8×8, ACGP achieves the lowest average teleportation latency (up to 61% lower than ODG for QFT, 57% for Cuccaro), at the cost of about 10% fidelity degradatio

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes its fixed hardware parameters (1 ms coherence time, 95% swapping and detection probabilities, 85% memory efficiency) and its simulator's timing and hardware-parameter model faithfully represent real multi-core quantum hardware; if these are optimistic or the simulator misses, say, crosstalk or control overheads, the reported 53–61% latency gains may not appear on actual devices.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If ACGP's latency advantage holds, multi-core quantum processors can tolerate higher communication traffic without stalling, making larger mesh designs (e.g., 8×8) more attractive.
Purification's low overhead means pre-generation need not sacrifice fidelity; it can become a standard pipeline stage, decoupling teleportation latency from entanglement generation latency.
The per-core probability table provides a low-cost runtime mechanism that requires no extra control hardware beyond counters and normalization.
ACGP's principle extends naturally to multi-hop entanglement swapping: learning which distant cores communicate can guide where to establish long-distance entanglement proactively.
The benchmark results establish that even a simple reactive-vs-proactive comparison is insufficient; traffic-pattern learning is the key differentiator.

Reading between the lines

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

The probability update with a fixed Δ and an unspecified history window may have been tuned for these benchmarks; a natural test is to see if ACGP remains superior when Δ is made adaptive or when communication patterns drift over time (non-stationary traffic).
The paper's assumption of all-to-all connectivity within cores sidesteps intra-core routing; on real chips, the cost of moving qubits within a core could change the preferred granularity of pre-generation, perhaps making per-core-pair tables less effective.
One could combine ACGP with topology-aware routing decisions: if the probability table is shared with the NoC router, then routing could favor links that already have pre-generated entanglement, turning ACGP from a generation policy into a joint communication-resource optimizer.
The reported latency reductions are simulated under a fixed coherence time of 1 ms; real systems with shorter coherence would shrink the window in which pre-generation pays off, suggesting an optimal pre-generation horizon that depends on hardware parameters—this trade-off is not explored in the paper.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague—

This is a plausible simulation study of a real bottleneck: entanglement generation for teleportation in multi-core quantum chips. The paper does two things well. First, it formalizes the reactive/proactive distinction (ODG vs CGP) and adds a genuinely new twist, ACGP, that adapts neighbor-selection probabilities based on recent traffic. Second, the evaluation is broader than most in this space—four benchmark subroutines across five mesh sizes, with a latency–fidelity trade-off and a purification recovery experiment. The latency reductions (about 53–61% vs ODG for QFT and similar ranges for the other benchmarks) are consistent with what you'd expect if the cache-hit analogy holds. The paper deserves credit for reporting the fidelity cost of pre-generation honestly.

The soft spots are real and they sit on the main claim. The stress-test is right: Δ and the history window in Eq. (1)–(2) are never specified, and Δ=0 makes ACGP identical to CGP. Without those values and a sensitivity analysis, the ACGP–CGP gap could be a product of per-benchmark tuning rather than a general property of the policy. The paper also gives no error bars, no seed counts, and no statistical tests, so we can't tell whether "significantly reduces" means anything beyond a single simulation run. There's no code or data release, which makes the result impossible to reproduce. The purification overhead is asserted ("minimal impact") but never measured; that's a gap, not a fatal flaw, because the qualitative trade-off is clear. The in-sample concern the reviewer raised is mild—comparing policies on identical traffic is fair—but a held-out test would have strengthened the generalizability claim.

The fixed physical parameters in Table I are a secondary worry; they affect all three protocols similarly, so they're unlikely to reverse the ordering, but the absolute latencies should be read as simulator numbers, not hardware predictions.

Bottom line: the idea is worth taking seriously and the paper is clearly written, but the central quantitative claim is not yet verifiable. I'd send it to peer review with a strong request for the missing parameters, sensitivity analysis, statistical variation, and artifacts. As it stands, I wouldn't cite the specific numbers, but I'd keep it on my desk as a pointer to the problem.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies entanglement management policies for inter-core quantum teleportation in mesh-based multi-core quantum processors. It compares reactive on-demand generation (ODG) with continuous pre-generation (CGP) and an adaptive continuous pre-generation (ACGP) policy that adjusts per-neighbor entanglement generation probabilities using recent communication history, Eq. (1). The authors extend the SeQUeNCe simulator with a Barrett–Kok entanglement model, fix hardware parameters in Table I, and evaluate QFT, Cuccaro/Draper adders, and MCTMV on 2×1 to 8×8 meshes. They report that ACGP achieves 53–61% lower average teleportation latency than ODG (Fig. 3), about 10–16% fidelity degradation (Fig. 4), and that purification restores fidelity with minimal impact on latency (Fig. 5).

Significance. If the quantitative claims are reliable, the paper makes a useful contribution to multi-core quantum NoC resource management: it proposes a traffic-aware pre-generation policy with a clear online learning rule and evaluates it on representative benchmark circuits. Strengths include the described algorithms (Algorithms 1–2), the use of an established discrete-event simulator, and explicit attention to the latency–fidelity trade-off. However, the central comparative claim depends on two undisclosed hyperparameters (Δ and the history window) and on point estimates without variance or sensitivity analysis; the purification overhead is asserted rather than measured. The contribution is plausible but cannot be assessed as presented.

major comments (4)

[§III-C, Eq. (1)–(2)] The ACGP update rule is parameterized by Δ and by the time window defining the sets U and V; neither value is reported anywhere in the paper. Algorithm 1 also leaves the sleep interval T_rand and the memory limit unspecified. Because Δ=0 makes ACGP identical to CGP, the reported reductions (e.g., 61% vs 53% for QFT, §IV-A) are partly a function of invisible parameters. The paper must state the exact values of Δ and the window, the initialization and update schedule, whether they were fixed a priori or tuned per benchmark, and a sensitivity sweep over these parameters. Without this, the ACGP advantage is not reproducible and could be an artifact of parameter choice.
[§IV-A, Fig. 3] All latency and fidelity numbers are point estimates; no error bars, confidence intervals, number of independent seeds/runs, or statistical significance tests are reported. The word "significantly" is used in the abstract and conclusion without statistical support. Since the simulator is discrete-event with probabilistic entanglement generation and swapping, run-to-run variance is expected. Please report means over at least N independent runs, the variance or confidence interval, and a statistical comparison (or at least an effect size) for the ACGP vs CGP gap. This is load-bearing for the headline claim.
[§IV-C, Fig. 5] The claim that purification restores fidelity "with minimal impact on latency" is not measured. Figure 5 plots a small number of points without reporting the extra resources consumed: number of purification operations, additional EPR pairs, classical communication, BSM operations, or added latency. The text asserts that purification runs in the background and overhead is minimal, but no timing or resource data support this. Please provide measured purification overhead or qualify the claim accordingly.
[§IV, Table I] The relative ranking of ODG vs CGP/ACGP depends on storage-related parameters such as coherence time (1 ms), memory efficiency, and BSM detection efficiency. Pre-generation is most advantageous when stored entanglement survives; if coherence time is shorter or generation is slower, the fidelity degradation and wasted resources could change the ranking. No sensitivity analysis is performed over any of these parameters. A basic sensitivity sweep over coherence time (and perhaps swapping probability) is needed to show that the ACGP advantage is not an artifact of a single optimistic parameter set.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and §V] The phrase "adaptive entanglement managements" should be "adaptive entanglement management policies" (grammar).
[§II-C] The text "mean EPR pair generation time is10 3ns" appears to mean 10^3 ns (1 µs); please fix the formatting and clarify the magnitude.
[§IV-A and Fig. 3] The benchmark name is written inconsistently: "MCTMV" in the text and "MCMTV" in Fig. 3 caption. Please use one consistent name.
[Algorithms 1–2] Algorithm 1 line 10 triggers entanglement generation at the initiator and Algorithm 2 line 7 starts it at the neighbor; it is unclear which endpoint coordinates the generation attempt. Please clarify the protocol handshake.
[§IV] The description of the SeQUeNCe extension ("extend the SeQUeNCe simulator") is not detailed. A brief list of the added modules, events, and timing model would help reproducibility, as would an artifact link if available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ACGP's advantage is an empirical simulation result; the self-citation supplies infrastructure, not the claimed conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—ACGP achieves lower average teleportation latency than ODG and CGP—is supported by a discrete-event simulation (extended SeQUeNCe) over four benchmark circuits and five mesh topologies, not by a mathematical derivation whose conclusion is embedded in its premises. Equations (1)–(2) define an online update rule; the measured latency is a direct simulation outcome under that rule. This is a trace-driven evaluation of an adaptive policy, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction: the policy is evaluated on the same workload it adapts to, which is standard for online prefetching/cache policies and does not make the comparison circular by construction. The paper does rely on the authors' own prior architecture in Section IV ('We evaluate our approach using the multi-core quantum architecture proposed [7]'), and Figure 2 reproduces [7]'s decentralized design; however, [7] is cited as a simulation/infrastructure model, and the relative ACGP-vs-CGP advantage does not reduce to any theorem or fitted value from [7]. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or renaming is imported. The unspecified update step Δ and traffic-history window in Eq. (1) and the absence of error bars are genuine reproducibility and robustness limitations, and Δ=0 would indeed collapse ACGP to CGP, but these are parameter-reporting and statistical-inference concerns, not circularity: the paper does not derive the latency advantage from the update rule; it simulates it. On the manuscript's own presentation, the latency/fidelity trade-off and purification results are also independent empirical observations. I therefore find no specific circular step that satisfies the 'quote and exhibit reduction' requirement, and the one self-citation is not load-bearing to the central claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on simulation parameters (coherence time, swap/BSM/memory efficiencies), the chosen architecture model, the all-to-all intra-core assumption, and the unspecified ACGP tuning parameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

Delta (update step) = not reported
In Eq. (1), Δ controls how aggressively ACGP shifts probabilities toward recently used neighbors. Its value is not given, and the magnitude of ACGP's latency advantage depends on it.
Traffic history time window = not reported
The protocol 'examines recent entanglement paths within a time window' (Section III-C); the window length is unspecified and determines which neighbors are in set U.
Memory limit for pre-generation = not reported
Algorithms 1–2 check 'used memory < memorylimit'; the limit is not specified, affecting how many EPR pairs can be stored and the hit rate.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Entanglement generation, swapping, and detection are probabilistic with the efficiencies in Table I (BSM 0.95, swap 0.95, memory 0.85).
Section IV models 'realistic hardware constraints'; if real efficiencies differ, the absolute latency and fidelity numbers change.
domain assumption The multi-core mesh architecture from Ref. [7] (decentralized BSM nodes) is used for all evaluations.
Section II-D and Section IV; the protocols are evaluated only on this architecture, not on centralized designs, so conclusions may not generalize.
domain assumption All-to-all qubit connectivity within each core.
Section IV states 'we assume all-to-all qubit connectivity within each core', which isolates inter-core effects but omits intra-core routing overhead that could affect teleportation timing.
domain assumption Coherence time of 1 ms sets the discard threshold for stored EPR pairs.
Table I; the fidelity degradation and purification benefits depend on this value, which may be optimistic for many hardware platforms.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adaptive Entanglement Management in Quantum Multi-Core Architectures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OSD2MNEA

@misc{pith2026260714592,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adaptive Entanglement Management in Quantum Multi-Core Architectures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OSD2MNEA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14592}
}

read the original abstract

Scalable quantum computing architectures increasingly rely on multi-core designs, where qubits are distributed across multiple processing cores interconnected through a quantum Network-on-Chip (NoC). In such systems, inter-core communication is typically realized through entanglement-assisted quantum teleportation, making efficient entanglement generation critical for performance. In this paper, we perform a comparative study of three entanglement management paradigms for multi-core quantum processors: reactive on-demand generation (ODG), proactive continuous pre-generation (CGP), and an adaptive continuous pre-generation approach (ACGP). While ODG generates entanglement only when required, CGP reduces average teleportation latency by pre-generating EPR pairs in the background. To improve upon this, we propose ACGP which dynamically adjusts entanglement generation probabilities based on observed inter-core communication patterns. We evaluate these approaches using an extended SeQUeNCe simulator on mesh-based multi-core architectures on real benchmark circuits. Results show that ACGP significantly reduces average teleportation latency compared to ODG and CGP. Although pre-generation introduces fidelity degradation due to storage time, entanglement purification effectively restores fidelity with minimal impact on latency. These results demonstrate that adaptive entanglement managements can substantially improve communication efficiency in scalable quantum multi-core systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14592 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Quantum Teleportation with steps different cores, several techniques are employed, including the insertion of SWAP gates, qubit shuttling in trappedion systems, and quantum teleportation using entanglement property [9]. Among these approaches, inter-core communication in multi-core quantum architectures commonly relies on entanglement-assisted protocols. Quantum teleportation depends on quantum entanglement and cl… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Multi-Core Quantum System with Distributed Entanglement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Comparison of average teleportation latency for proposed protocols across different mesh topologies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Comparison of entanglement fidelity for proposed protocols across different mesh topologies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Latency–fidelity trade-off achieved through purification [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[1]

Scaling Super- conducting Quantum Computers with Chiplet Architectures,

K. N. Smith, G. S. Ravi, J. M. Baker, and F. T. Chong, “Scaling Super- conducting Quantum Computers with Chiplet Architectures,” in55th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO), 2022, pp. 1092–1109

2022
[2]

Scalable multi-chip quantum architectures enabled by cryogenic hybrid wireless/quantum-coherent network-in- package,

E. Alarc ´on, S. Abadal, F. Sebastiano, M. Babaie, E. Charbon, P. H. Bol´ıvar, M. Palesi, E. Blokhina, D. Leipold, B. Staszewski, A. Garcia- S´aez, and C. G. Almudever, “Scalable multi-chip quantum architectures enabled by cryogenic hybrid wireless/quantum-coherent network-in- package,” inIEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), 2023, pp. 1–5

2023
[3]

Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond,

J. Preskill, “Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond,”Quan- tum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018

2018
[4]

Interconnect Fabrics for Multi-Core Quantum Processors: A Context Analysis,

P. Escofet, S. B. Rached, S. Rodrigo, C. G. Almudever, E. Alarc ´on, and S. Abadal, “Interconnect Fabrics for Multi-Core Quantum Processors: A Context Analysis,” inIEEE/ACM 16th International Workshop on Network on Chip Architectures (NoCArc), 2023, pp. 34–39

2023
[5]

Modelling Short-range Quantum Teleportation for Scalable Multi-Core Quantum Computing Architectures,

S. Rodrigo, S. Abadal, C. G. Almud ´ever, and E. Alarc ´on, “Modelling Short-range Quantum Teleportation for Scalable Multi-Core Quantum Computing Architectures,” inEight Annual ACM International Confer- ence on Nanoscale Computing and Communication (NANOCOM), 2021, pp. 1–7

2021
[6]

When Entanglement Meets Classical Communications: Quantum Teleportation for the Quantum Internet,

A. S. Cacciapuoti, M. Caleffi, R. Van Meter, and L. Hanzo, “When Entanglement Meets Classical Communications: Quantum Teleportation for the Quantum Internet,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 3808–3833, 2020

2020
[7]

Decentralized Frame- work for Teleportation in Quantum Core Interconnects,

P. R. Suance, R. Gupta, M. Palesi, and J. Jose, “Decentralized Frame- work for Teleportation in Quantum Core Interconnects,” inIEEE Com- puter Society Annual Symposium on VLSI (ISVLSI), 2025, pp. 1–6

2025
[8]

TeleSABRE: Heuristic Layout Synthesis in Multi-Core Quantum Sys- tems with Teleport Interconnect,

E. Russo, E. Vinciguerra, M. Palesi, D. Patti, G. Ascia, and V . Catania, “TeleSABRE: Heuristic Layout Synthesis in Multi-Core Quantum Sys- tems with Teleport Interconnect,” inIEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), 2025, pp. 749–758

2025

Show all 17 references

[9]

Assessing the Role of Communication in Scalable Multi-Core Quantum Architectures,

M. Palesi, E. Russo, D. Patti, G. Ascia, and V . Catania, “Assessing the Role of Communication in Scalable Multi-Core Quantum Architectures,” inIEEE International Symposium on Embedded Multicore/Many-core Systems-on-Chip (MCSoC), 2024, pp. 482–489

2024
[10]

Multicore Quantum Computing,

H. Jnane, B. Undseth, Z. Cai, S. C. Benjamin, and B. Koczor, “Multicore Quantum Computing,”Physical review applied, vol. 18, no. 4, 2022

2022
[11]

Distributed Routing in a Quantum Internet,

K. Chakraborty, F. Rozpedek, A. Dahlberg, and S. Wehner, “Distributed Routing in a Quantum Internet,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11630, 2019

1907 arXiv
[12]

Entanglement Routing in Quantum Networks: A Comprehensive Survey,

A. Abane, M. Cubeddu, V . S. Mai, and A. Battou, “Entanglement Routing in Quantum Networks: A Comprehensive Survey,”IEEE Trans- actions on Quantum Engineering, 2025

2025
[13]

SeQUeNCe: A Customizable Discrete-Event Simulator of Quantum Networks,

X. Wu, A. Kolar, J. Chung, D. Jin, T. Zhong, R. Kettimuthu, and M. Suchara, “SeQUeNCe: A Customizable Discrete-Event Simulator of Quantum Networks,”Quantum Science & Technology, vol. 6, no. 4, p. 045027, 2021

2021
[14]

An approximate Fourier Transform useful in Quantum Factoring,

D. Coppersmith, “An approximate Fourier Transform useful in Quantum Factoring,”arXiv preprint quant-ph/0201067, 2002

2002 arXiv
[15]

A New Quantum Ripple-carry Addition Circuit,

S. A. Cuccaro, T. G. Draper, S. A. Kutin, and D. P. Moulton, “A New Quantum Ripple-carry Addition Circuit,”arXiv preprint quant- ph/0410184, 2004

2004
[16]

Addition on a Quantum Computer,

T. G. Draper, “Addition on a Quantum Computer,”arXiv preprint quant- ph/0008033, 2000

2000
[17]

Qiskit: An Open-source Framework for Quantum Computing,

Q. Contributors, “Qiskit: An Open-source Framework for Quantum Computing,”Zenodo: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Scaling Super- conducting Quantum Computers with Chiplet Architectures,

K. N. Smith, G. S. Ravi, J. M. Baker, and F. T. Chong, “Scaling Super- conducting Quantum Computers with Chiplet Architectures,” in55th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO), 2022, pp. 1092–1109

2022

[2] [2]

Scalable multi-chip quantum architectures enabled by cryogenic hybrid wireless/quantum-coherent network-in- package,

E. Alarc ´on, S. Abadal, F. Sebastiano, M. Babaie, E. Charbon, P. H. Bol´ıvar, M. Palesi, E. Blokhina, D. Leipold, B. Staszewski, A. Garcia- S´aez, and C. G. Almudever, “Scalable multi-chip quantum architectures enabled by cryogenic hybrid wireless/quantum-coherent network-in- package,” inIEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), 2023, pp. 1–5

2023

[3] [3]

Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond,

J. Preskill, “Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond,”Quan- tum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018

2018

[4] [4]

Interconnect Fabrics for Multi-Core Quantum Processors: A Context Analysis,

P. Escofet, S. B. Rached, S. Rodrigo, C. G. Almudever, E. Alarc ´on, and S. Abadal, “Interconnect Fabrics for Multi-Core Quantum Processors: A Context Analysis,” inIEEE/ACM 16th International Workshop on Network on Chip Architectures (NoCArc), 2023, pp. 34–39

2023

[5] [5]

Modelling Short-range Quantum Teleportation for Scalable Multi-Core Quantum Computing Architectures,

S. Rodrigo, S. Abadal, C. G. Almud ´ever, and E. Alarc ´on, “Modelling Short-range Quantum Teleportation for Scalable Multi-Core Quantum Computing Architectures,” inEight Annual ACM International Confer- ence on Nanoscale Computing and Communication (NANOCOM), 2021, pp. 1–7

2021

[6] [6]

When Entanglement Meets Classical Communications: Quantum Teleportation for the Quantum Internet,

A. S. Cacciapuoti, M. Caleffi, R. Van Meter, and L. Hanzo, “When Entanglement Meets Classical Communications: Quantum Teleportation for the Quantum Internet,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 3808–3833, 2020

2020

[7] [7]

Decentralized Frame- work for Teleportation in Quantum Core Interconnects,

P. R. Suance, R. Gupta, M. Palesi, and J. Jose, “Decentralized Frame- work for Teleportation in Quantum Core Interconnects,” inIEEE Com- puter Society Annual Symposium on VLSI (ISVLSI), 2025, pp. 1–6

2025

[8] [8]

TeleSABRE: Heuristic Layout Synthesis in Multi-Core Quantum Sys- tems with Teleport Interconnect,

E. Russo, E. Vinciguerra, M. Palesi, D. Patti, G. Ascia, and V . Catania, “TeleSABRE: Heuristic Layout Synthesis in Multi-Core Quantum Sys- tems with Teleport Interconnect,” inIEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), 2025, pp. 749–758

2025