Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Architecture-Aware Reinforcement Learning for Communication-Efficient Distributed Quantum Circuit Compilation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A reinforcement-learning policy can schedule split and merge actions for distributed quantum compilation, matching hand-designed heuristics on structured circuits while operating under stricter channel-capacity constraints.

desk verdict A solid, honestly reported RL compiler for distributed circuits that matches heuristics on structured benchmarks, loses on dense ones, and needs a merge-cost check before the EPR-efficiency claim fully holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06892 v1 pith:3SDIUW3D submitted 2026-08-07 quant-ph

Chien-Tung Kuo , Felix Burt , Samuel Yen-Chi Chen , Kin K. Leung , Kuan-Cheng Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.-a03.67.Lx
keywords distributedquantumcomputingcircuitcompilationreinforcementlearningPPOheterogeneousgraphEPRpairsplit-mergecommunicationscheduling
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

This paper tries to establish that distributed quantum circuit compilation can be treated as a constrained Markov decision process and solved by a reinforcement-learning policy that never sees hand-coded routing rules. The policy, a heterogeneous graph neural network trained with PPO, picks split and merge actions that update which QPUs hold each logical qubit; when the reward includes a lookahead term, the policy anticipates future gate locality. On QAOA and QFT benchmarks the policy's average split counts (4.0 on each) match the DISQCO baseline on QFT and trail Pytket-DQC and DISQCO on QAOA (both 3.0). On random circuits the full policy averages 39.0 splits, better than Pytket-DQC's 39.5 and modestly worse than DISQCO's 35.7, while on dense quantum-volume circuits it needs 28.7 splits versus DISQCO's 11.9. The paper's claim is therefore that RL is a workable, flexible alternative to heuristics, not that it dominates them.

What carries the argument

The split and merge primitives, the constrained MDP, the heterogeneous graph observation, and the hierarchical action decoder. A split consumes one EPR pair to make a logical qubit available at an additional QPU; a merge removes a redundant placement. Around these primitives the paper builds a constrained Markov decision process whose transitions update placement sets $Loc_t(q)$, QPU clocks, and channel budgets, and a heterogeneous graph over QPU, qubit, and gate nodes with typed edges for topology, presence, operands, dependencies, and co-location. The hierarchical decoder selects qubit, source, action type, and destination, with feasibility masks; the reward's lookahead term carries the delayed-locality signal.

What would settle it

Measure the physical EPR consumption of the split/merge protocol on a two-QPU architecture with noisy entanglement generation and a nonzero cost for merges and channel seconds. If the ordering of RL versus DISQCO on random circuits changes when merges are charged EPR pairs, then the paper's primary metric, split count equal to EPR pairs, is not a faithful resource measure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a learned policy can solve the two-QPU compilation problem under explicit channel-capacity and qubit-capacity constraints with EPR efficiency comparable to dedicated heuristics, provided the state is a heterogeneous graph and the reward separates immediate progress from delayed locality. The action space is factorized into qubit, source QPU, split-or-merge, and destination, with feasibility masks; after each action all newly executed gates run, and the communication clock advances only when a source QPU exhausts its channel budget. The lookahead reward term $|G^{t+1}_{\mathrm{exec}}| - |G^{t}_{\mathrm{exec}}|$ is the mechanism that gives modest random-circuit gains. The reported numbers: QAOA and QFT average 4.0 splits (baselines 3.0 and 4.0–5.7), random circuits 39.0 (baselines 39.5 and 35.7), quantum volume 28.7 (baselines 17.5 and 11.9).

Load-bearing premise

The comparison to baselines treats one split as exactly one EPR pair and ignores the EPR cost of merges, re-splits, failed entanglement generation, and noise; if real entanglement-assisted communication does not follow that accounting, the reported EPR counts do not measure physical communication cost.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same policy, without retraining on circuit families, matches DISQCO's split count on QFT and comes within one split of it on QAOA, so manual routing heuristics are not necessary for these structured workloads.
  • Because the RL environment enforces per-QPU communication-channel budgets while Pytket-DQC and DISQCO are evaluated without them, the RL policy's competitive split counts are achieved under a stricter resource model.
  • The lookahead reward's small gain on random circuits (39.0 vs 42.0 for progress-only) shows that delayed-locality shaping helps exactly where decisions have deferred benefits, but it does not help on quantum volume (28.7 vs 24.7 for no-lookahead).
  • Dense, permutation-heavy circuits remain unsolved by this approach: the policy's action-value signal is too flat to coordinate globally, and scalability is the stated bottleneck.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct comparison under the same channel-capacity model for all methods would isolate whether the quantum-volume gap (28.7 vs 11.9) comes from the RL policy's decision quality or from the stricter hardware assumptions the paper imposes on itself.
  • If EPR cost is accounted per merge and per failed or held channel rather than per split, the random-circuit ranking between RL and Pytket-DQC could change; the paper's metric is an abstraction, not a measured Bell-pair budget.
  • The factorized action decoder and heterogeneous graph are architecture-agnostic, so extending to more than two QPUs or heterogeneous link capacities is a direct next test; the paper lists training on circuit families as future work.
  • A natural calibration experiment: train the policy on quantum-volume circuits alone, without curriculum mixing, and see whether the split-count gap closes; if it does not, the bottleneck is reward signal rather than architecture.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a reinforcement learning (RL) framework for distributed quantum circuit compilation. It formulates compilation as a constrained Markov Decision Process (MDP) over split and merge communication primitives, uses a heterogeneous graph to represent qubits, QPUs, and gates, and trains a policy with Proximal Policy Optimization. The policy is evaluated on QAOA, QFT, random, and quantum volume circuits against the Pytket-DQC and DISQCO heuristics, with the number of split operations used as the proxy for EPR-pair consumption. The authors report that the RL policy matches the heuristics on structured circuits (QAOA, QFT) and gives modest improvements on random circuits, while remaining clearly worse on quantum volume circuits. The paper claims that the framework is a flexible alternative to manual heuristics, with scalability identified as a remaining limitation.

Significance. If the empirical results are robust, the paper makes a meaningful contribution to distributed quantum compilation by demonstrating that an RL policy with graph-based state encoding can discover communication strategies comparable to specialized heuristics. The constrained-MDP formulation and the heterogeneous graph representation are carefully designed and constitute a solid methodological template. The paper does not rely on fitted constants for its central claim; the evaluation is a direct empirical comparison. However, the significance is mitigated by the lack of statistical rigor, the unvalidated equivalence between EPR cost and split count, and the large performance gap on quantum volume circuits. The framework is a promising approach, but the evidence presented does not yet fully support the strength of the stated claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [III-B, II-A] The optimization objective in Section III-B equates EPR-pair consumption with the number of split operations ("the number of EPR pairs consumed, which is equivalent to the number of split operations under our communication model"). This equivalence is asserted without supporting justification. The merge/disentangler primitive introduced in Section II-A is not described as entanglement-free, and in the cited protocols (Refs. [31], [33]) the reverse operation is not explicitly cost-free in EPR pairs. If merges also consume entanglement, then Table III and Fig. 5 measure only part of the true communication cost, and the comparisons to DISQCO and Pytket-DQC could be reversed if the RL policy uses more merges. Please either justify the cost model with explicit references or report merge counts and use splits+merges as the EPR cost metric.
  2. [VI (Table III, Fig. 5)] The empirical evaluation reports single average values with no error bars, number of seeds, or statistical tests. The central claims—"matches state-of-the-art heuristics" and "lookahead reward shaping yielding modest improvements"—rest on small differences (e.g., 39.0 vs 42.0 on random circuits). Without variance information, these differences could be noise. Please report mean ± standard deviation across multiple random seeds (at least 5–10) and, where relevant, a paired significance test (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank test) or effect size.
  3. [VI-B] The "No-lookahead RL" ablation is not defined. The text contrasts it with "Progress-only RL" (which removes the lookahead reward component), but it does not explain what "future-horizon state lookahead" means in the policy architecture. No such mechanism is introduced in Section IV. Without a precise definition, this ablation cannot be interpreted, and the claim about lookahead reward shaping is therefore unclear. Please specify exactly what is being ablated or remove this variant.
  4. [III-C2, III-D1] The temporal communication model in Section III-C2 decrements only the source QPU's channel budget (Eqs. (9)–(11)), while the feasibility constraint in Eq. (14) requires available channels on both the source and destination QPUs. The destination's channel is never consumed, so the dynamic capacity limit is not enforced for the receiving side. This contradicts the stated contribution of enforcing "physical capacity limits on concurrent communication primitives" and could allow the policy to schedule more concurrent splits than the model intends. Please fix the channel accounting or clarify the intended semantics.
minor comments (5)
  1. [III-D2] The phrase "a logical qubit is require to be uniquely localized" contains a grammatical error; it should read "is required to be uniquely localized."
  2. [References] Reference [24] and reference [40] both cite the same publication ("A multilevel framework for partitioning quantum circuits"). Please deduplicate.
  3. [Table III] The heading "V olume" contains an extra space; it should be "Volume."
  4. [V-C] The baselines assume unconstrained link availability while the RL framework enforces channel capacities. Although the paper states this does not alter EPR count logic, the differing problem settings make the comparison less direct; a sentence explaining why the capacity constraint does not bias the EPR count would help.
  5. [IV-D] Reproducibility would be improved by reporting the PPO hyperparameters (learning rate, batch size, clip ratio, number of epochs) and releasing the evaluation code; only reward hyperparameters are given in Table II.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the central result is an empirical comparison against public baseline libraries, and the only self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a PPO-trained heterogeneous-graph policy matches state-of-the-art heuristics on communication cost for QFT, QAOA, and random circuits, while losing on quantum volume. This is an empirical benchmark result, not a derivation from fitted constants or from a self-citation chain. The reward function (Eq. 23, r_split = -I_split) and the evaluation metric (number of split operations as EPR count) are aligned by design, but that is standard training/evaluation consistency rather than circularity: the policy is not fit to the test outputs, and the benchmark circuits are generated externally with Qiskit. The DISQCO and Pytket-DQC baselines are public software libraries (Refs. [41] and [42]); DISQCO is authored by co-author Burt and builds on same-group papers [24], [26], and [40], but the baseline is code-reproduced rather than an unverified assertion, so this is self-citation without being load-bearing. The paper explicitly reports the setting where RL loses badly (quantum volume: 28.7 vs 11.9 splits), which further indicates the comparison is not constructed to force a favorable outcome. The modeling assumption that EPR consumption equals the number of split operations (Section III-B) is a stated simplification of entanglement-assisted primitives and could affect the physical interpretation of Table III, but it is an abstraction, not a circular reduction of the result to its inputs. Reward weights in Table II are fixed empirically, but no claim is made that they are derived from benchmark outcomes. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz-smuggling citation, or renamed-known-result pattern appears. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained in the sense required by the circularity check.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central evaluation rests on the split/merge abstraction for EPR cost, the restriction to symmetric CP gates with unique localization of single-qubit gates, the round-based channel model, and seven hand-selected reward weights. No new physical entities are introduced; the split and merge primitives are inherited from prior work [31], [33].

free parameters (7)
  • Latency reward weight w_lat = 1.0
    Table II; chosen empirically to balance temporal contention penalty.
  • Split penalty weight w_split = 0.3
    Table II; controls the direct penalty per split action, the central EPR objective.
  • Progress reward weight w_prog = 20.0
    Table II; dominant term rewarding executed gates, selected for stable learning.
  • Lookahead reward weight w_look = 0.5
    Table II; governs the reward for increased executable gate count.
  • Completion reward weight w_comp = 1.0
    Table II; terminal reward weight.
  • Completion bonus B_complete = 10.0
    Table II; terminal bonus for finishing all gates.
  • Terminal latency penalty kappa = 0.05
    Table II; final makespan penalty in the terminal reward.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Split consumes exactly one EPR pair; EPR count equals split count.
    Section II-A and III-B. The central metric and reward are built on this equivalence; it comes from the compiler-level abstraction, not measured hardware.
  • domain assumption Circuits are restricted to symmetric CP gates, and single-qubit gates must be uniquely localized even when diagonal.
    Section II-B and III-D2. Limits generality; the paper states it enforces uniqueness 'for simplicity' on diagonal gates.
  • domain assumption Round-based communication model with per-QPU channel budgets defines contention and makespan.
    Section III-C2. Makespan is used only as internal reward, not as a cross-method metric; baselines assume unconstrained links.
  • standard math Standard RL and GNN machinery (PPO, GAT, LayerNorm) is valid for this optimization.
    Background methods; no formal guarantees needed for the empirical comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Architecture-Aware Reinforcement Learning for Communication-Efficient Distributed Quantum Circuit Compilation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3SDIUW3D

@misc{pith2026260806892,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Architecture-Aware Reinforcement Learning for Communication-Efficient Distributed Quantum Circuit Compilation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3SDIUW3D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06892}
}
read the original abstract

Distributed quantum computing provides a scalable route for executing quantum circuits beyond the capacity limits of a single quantum processing unit (QPU), but it introduces a communication-aware compilation problem involving strict hardware constraints and circuit dependencies. This paper presents an architecture-aware reinforcement-learning framework that formulates distributed quantum compilation as a constrained Markov Decision Process (MDP). The compiler-level communication actions dynamically update logical-qubit placement and enable subsequent gate execution. A heterogeneous graph model represents interactions among hardware, logical qubits, and circuit operations, while a policy trained via Proximal Policy Optimization optimizes EPR-pair consumption and communication makespan. Evaluation across benchmark circuits shows that our policy matches state-of-the-art heuristics on structured workloads, with lookahead reward shaping yielding modest improvements on unstructured circuits. These results demonstrate that reinforcement learning is a flexible alternative to manual heuristics, though scalability remains a key bottleneck for practical use.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06892 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The two communication primitives. A split operation uses a Bell [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of a distributed two-qubit gate. Initially, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Preliminary abstraction of distributed quantum circuit compilation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of the proposed RL framework. The state builder constructs a graph observation from circuit structure, QPU topology, current placement, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Communication cost versus circuit depth for random and quantum volume benchmarks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [30]

    Compiler for distributed quantum computing: A reinforcement learning approach,

    P. Promponas, A. Mudvari, L. D. Chiesa, P. Polakos, L. Samuel, and L. Tassiulas, “Compiler for distributed quantum computing: A reinforcement learning approach,” inICC 2025–IEEE International Conference on Communications, pp. 4615–4621, IEEE, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [31]

    Generalized GHZ States and Distributed Quantum Computing,

    A. Yimsiriwattana and S. J. Lomonaco Jr, “Generalized GHZ States and Distributed Quantum Computing,” Mar. 2004

    work page 2004

  3. [33]

    Entanglement-efficient bipartite-distributed quantum computing,

    J.-Y . Wu, K. Matsui, T. Forrer, A. Soeda, P. Andr´es-Mart´ınez, D. Mills, L. Henaut, and M. Murao, “Entanglement-efficient bipartite-distributed quantum computing,”Quantum, vol. 7, p. 1196, Dec. 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [1]

    Distributed quantum computation over noisy channels,

    J. I. Cirac, A. Ekert, S. F. Huelga, and C. Macchiavello, “Distributed quantum computation over noisy channels,”Physical Review A, vol. 59, no. 6, p. 4249, 1999

    work page 1999

  5. [2]

    The path to scalable distributed quantum computing,

    R. Van Meter and S. J. Devitt, “The path to scalable distributed quantum computing,”Computer, vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 31–42, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [3]

    Distributed quantum computing: a survey,

    M. Caleffi, M. Amoretti, D. Ferrari, J. Illiano, A. Manzalini, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, “Distributed quantum computing: a survey,”Computer Networks, vol. 254, p. 110672, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [4]

    Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels,

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Cr ´epeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, “Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels,”Physical review letters, vol. 70, no. 13, p. 1895, 1993

    1993

  8. [5]

    “event- ready-detectors

    M. ˙Zukowski, A. Zeilinger, M. A. Horne, and A. K. Ekert, ““event- ready-detectors”bell experiment via entanglement swapping,”Physical review letters, vol. 71, no. 26, p. 4287, 1993

    1993

Show all 41 references
  1. [6]

    Optimal local implementation of nonlocal quantum gates,

    J. Eisert, K. Jacobs, P. Papadopoulos, and M. B. Plenio, “Optimal local implementation of nonlocal quantum gates,”Physical Review A, vol. 62, no. 5, p. 052317, 2000

    2000

  2. [7]

    Quantum internet: Networking challenges in dis- tributed quantum computing,

    A. S. Cacciapuoti, M. Caleffi, F. Tafuri, F. S. Cataliotti, S. Gherardini, and G. Bianchi, “Quantum internet: Networking challenges in dis- tributed quantum computing,”IEEE Network, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 137– 143, 2019

    2019

  3. [8]

    Synthesis of quantum logic circuits,

    V . V . Shende, S. S. Bullock, and I. L. Markov, “Synthesis of quantum logic circuits,” inProceedings of the 2005 Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference, pp. 272–275, 2005

    2005

  4. [9]

    Qubit allocation as a combination of subgraph isomorphism and token swapping,

    M. Y . Siraichi, V . F. d. Santos, C. Collange, and F. M. Q. Pereira, “Qubit allocation as a combination of subgraph isomorphism and token swapping,”Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages, vol. 3, no. OOPSLA, pp. 1–29, 2019

    2019

  5. [10]

    An efficient methodology for mapping quantum circuits to the ibm qx architectures,

    A. Zulehner, A. Paler, and R. Wille, “An efficient methodology for mapping quantum circuits to the ibm qx architectures,”IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 1226–1236, 2018

    2018

  6. [11]

    Circuit transformations for quantum architectures,

    A. M. Childs, E. Schoute, and C. M. Unsal, “Circuit transformations for quantum architectures,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.09102, 2019

    1902 arXiv

  7. [12]

    Qsyn: A developer-friendly quantum circuit synthesis framework for nisq era and beyond,

    M.-T. Lau, C.-Y . Cheng, C.-H. Lu, C.-H. Chuang, Y .-H. Kuo, H.-C. Yang, C.-T. Kuo, H.-Y . Chen, C.-Y . Tung, C.-E. Tsai, G.-H. Chen, L.-K. Lin, C.-H. Wang, T.-H. Wang, and C.-Y . R. Huang, “Qsyn: A developer-friendly quantum circuit synthesis framework for nisq era and beyond...

    2024

  8. [13]

    Automated distribution of quan- tum circuits via hypergraph partitioning,

    P. Andres-Martinez and C. Heunen, “Automated distribution of quan- tum circuits via hypergraph partitioning,”Physical Review A, vol. 100, no. 3, p. 032308, 2019

    2019

  9. [14]

    Distribution of quantum circuits over general quantum networks,

    R. G. Sundaram, H. Gupta, and C. Ramakrishnan, “Distribution of quantum circuits over general quantum networks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.06437, 2022. TABLE V NODE FEATURE SUMMARY. Type Feature Description QPU Free capacity ratio Available qubit slots normalized by total capac...

    2022 arXiv

  10. [15]

    A modular quantum compilation framework for distributed quantum computing,

    D. Ferrari, S. Carretta, and M. Amoretti, “A modular quantum compilation framework for distributed quantum computing,”IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 4, pp. 1–13, 2023

    2023

  11. [16]

    Optimized compiler for distributed quantum computing,

    D. Cuomo, M. Caleffi, K. Krsulich, F. Tramonto, G. Agliardi, E. Prati, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, “Optimized compiler for distributed quantum computing,”ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1–29, 2023

    2023

  12. [17]

    Autocomm: A framework for enabling efficient communication in distributed quantum programs,

    A. Wu, H. Zhang, G. Li, A. Shabani, Y . Xie, and Y . Ding, “Autocomm: A framework for enabling efficient communication in distributed quantum programs,” in2022 55th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO), pp. 1027–1041, IEEE, 2022

    2022

  13. [18]

    Qucomm: Optimizing collective communi- cation for distributed quantum computing,

    A. Wu, Y . Ding, and A. Li, “Qucomm: Optimizing collective communi- cation for distributed quantum computing,” inProceedings of the 56th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, pp. 479–493, 2023

    2023

  14. [19]

    Adaptive resource orchestration for distributed quantum computing systems,

    K.-C. Chen, F. Burt, N. K. Panigrahy, and K. K. Leung, “Adaptive resource orchestration for distributed quantum computing systems,” IEEE Internet Computing, 2026

    2026

  15. [20]

    Qubit allocation for distributed quantum computing,

    Y . Mao, Y . Liu, and Y . Yang, “Qubit allocation for distributed quantum computing,” inIEEE INFOCOM 2023-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, pp. 1–10, IEEE, 2023

    2023

  16. [21]

    Revisiting the mapping of quantum circuits: Entering the multi-core era,

    P. Escofet, A. Ovide, M. Bandic, L. Prielinger, H. van Someren, S. Feld, E. Alarc ´on, S. Abadal, and C. G. Almud ´ever, “Revisiting the mapping of quantum circuits: Entering the multi-core era,”ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–26, 2025

    2025

  17. [22]

    TeleSABRE: Heuristic layout synthesis in multi-core quantum systems with teleport interconnect,

    E. Russo, E. Vinciguerra, M. Palesi, D. Patti, G. Ascia, and V . Cata- nia, “TeleSABRE: Heuristic layout synthesis in multi-core quantum systems with teleport interconnect,” in2025 IEEE International Con- ference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), IEEE, 2025

    2025

  18. [23]

    Generalised circuit partition- ing for distributed quantum computing,

    F. Burt, K.-C. Chen, and K. K. Leung, “Generalised circuit partition- ing for distributed quantum computing,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 2, pp. 173–178, IEEE, 2024

    2024

  19. [25]

    Distributing circuits over heterogeneous, modular quantum computing network architectures,

    P. Andres-Martinez, T. Forrer, D. Mills, J.-Y . Wu, L. Henaut, K. Ya- mamoto, M. Murao, and R. Duncan, “Distributing circuits over heterogeneous, modular quantum computing network architectures,” Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 9, p. 045021, Aug. 2024

    2024

  20. [26]

    Entanglement-efficient dis- tribution of quantum circuits over large-scale quantum networks,

    F. Burt, K.-C. Chen, and K. K. Leung, “Entanglement-efficient dis- tribution of quantum circuits over large-scale quantum networks,” in 2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 1, pp. 1111–1122, IEEE, 2025

    2025

  21. [27]

    Profiling quantum circuits for their efficient execution on single- and multi-core architectures,

    M. Bandic, P. le Henaff, A. Ovide, P. Escofet, S. B. Rached, S. Rodrigo, H. van Someren, S. Abadal, E. Alarc ´on, C. G. Almud´ever, and S. Feld, “Profiling quantum circuits for their efficient execution on single- and multi-core architectures,”Quantum Science and Technology, v...

    2025

  22. [28]

    Characterizing the inter-core qubit traffic in large-scale quantum modular architectures,

    S. B. Rached, I. L. Agudo, S. Rodrigo, M. Bandic, A. Garcia-Saez, S. Feld, H. van Someren, E. Alarc ´on, C. G. Almud´ever, and S. Abadal, “Characterizing the inter-core qubit traffic in large-scale quantum modular architectures,”IEEE Access, vol. 13, pp. 113236–113257, 2025

    2025

  23. [29]

    Network-aware scheduling for remote gate execution in quantum data centers,

    S. Pouryousef, R. Nejabati, D. Towsley, R. Kompella, and E. Kaur, “Network-aware scheduling for remote gate execution in quantum data centers,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.20176, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    A single quantum cannot be cloned,

    W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek, “A single quantum cannot be cloned,” Nature, vol. 299, no. 5886, pp. 802–803, 1982

    1982

  25. [34]

    van Otterlo and M

    M. van Otterlo and M. Wiering,Reinforcement Learning and Markov Decision Processes, pp. 3–42. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012

    2012

  26. [35]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms,

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Proximal policy optimization algorithms,” 2017

    2017

  27. [36]

    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, “Quantum computing with qiskit,” 2024

    2024

  28. [37]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,

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

    2014 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Implementation of the quantum fourier transform,

    Y . S. Weinstein, M. Pravia, E. Fortunato, S. Lloyd, and D. G. Cory, “Implementation of the quantum fourier transform,”Physical review letters, vol. 86, no. 9, p. 1889, 2001

    2001

  30. [39]

    Validating quantum computers using randomized model circuits,

    A. W. Cross, L. S. Bishop, S. Sheldon, P. D. Nation, and J. M. Gambetta, “Validating quantum computers using randomized model circuits,”Physical Review A, vol. 100, no. 3, p. 032328, 2019

    2019

  31. [40]

    A multilevel framework for partitioning quantum circuits,

    F. Burt, K.-C. Chen, and K. K. Leung, “A multilevel framework for partitioning quantum circuits,”Quantum, vol. 10, p. 1984, 2026

    1984

  32. [41]

    CQCL/pytket- dqc

    P. Andres-Martinez, D. Mills, T. Forrer, and L. Henaut, “CQCL/pytket- dqc.” https://github.com/Quantinuum/pytket-dqc, 2024

    2024

  33. [42]

    Disqco: Distributed quantum circuit optimisation

    F. Burt, “Disqco: Distributed quantum circuit optimisation.” https:// github.com/felix-burt/DISQCO, 2025

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.