Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 25 references

Physics-Aware Compilation for Parallel Quantum Circuit Execution on Neutral Atom Arrays

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read PAC claims that partitioning the neutral-atom trap plane and the circuit into independent regions compiles commutable 60–90 qubit circuits tens to hundreds of times faster than DPQA while preserving circuit depth.

desk verdict A real engineering contribution to neutral atom compilation with consistent speedup data, but the physical validity of its parallel schedules is asserted, not checked, and the main claim needs referee scrutiny before it can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13049 v1 pith:CZMQ3QU6 submitted 2025-05-19 quant-ph cs.ET

Geng Chen , Guowu Yang , Wenjie Sun , Lianhui Yu , Guangwei Deng , Desheng Zheng , Xiaoyu Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.ET
keywords NeutralAtomQuantumComputingCompilationQubitMappingPhysics-AwareOptimizationParallelCircuitExecutionHardwarePlanePartitioningKernighan-LinAlgorithm
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

PAC is a compilation method for neutral atom quantum computers that aims to break the link between compile time and hardware flexibility. The method partitions the trap plane into two independent regions and, using an improved Kernighan–Lin graph partition, splits the quantum circuit so that most two-qubit gates are compiled inside one region or the other and only cross-region gates are left for a global phase. On 40 commutable 3-regular graph circuits with 60 to 90 qubits, PAC compiles every tested circuit within 1200 seconds on a $16\times16$ array and within 200 seconds on a $64\times64$ array, while the baseline DPQA frequently times out at 10,000 seconds. Reported speedups reach $78.5\times$ on $16\times16$ arrays and $202.81\times$ on $24\times24$ arrays, with average circuit depth staying within about one layer of DPQA's. If correct, this makes neutral atom compilation practical for the circuit sizes where existing solvers become prohibitive.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a two-stage decomposition: Hardware Plane Partitioning splits the trap plane into two subarrays whose AOD columns and rows are independent, and Quantum Circuit Division uses an improved Kernighan–Lin algorithm to split the qubit-interaction graph into two communities. The improved Kernighan–Lin algorithm iteratively swaps 'swap qubits' — active qubits with more external than internal connections — to minimize $L = k(N_{f,1}+N_{f,2})+(1-k)N_{E,\text{cross}}$, where $N_{f,1},N_{f,2}$ count active qubits in each community and $N_{E,\text{cross}}$ counts cross-community two-qubit gates. This decomposition converts one large Max-SAT-style solver problem over the whole plane into two smaller local problems solved in parallel plus a small global problem, with constraints (2)–(5) gluing the phases together.

What would settle it

Take a PAC-produced schedule for any benchmark circuit and compare, for every time step, the positions of qubits executing two-qubit gates in Region 1 with those in Region 2; if any pair from different regions lies within the Rydberg blockade or restriction-zone radius used by the discretized model, the parallel local-phase execution is invalid.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the computational bottleneck in neutral atom compilation is mostly unnecessary coupling between regions that the hardware can keep independent. PAC cuts the $N\times N$ array into two subarrays and compiles the circuit assigned to each region in parallel, exploiting the fact that AOD arrays in separate regions can operate independently. The circuit is split by an improved Kernighan–Lin algorithm operating on the qubit-interaction graph; its loss function $L = k(N_{f,1}+N_{f,2})+(1-k)N_{E,\text{cross}}$ penalizes both the number of active qubits that must cross regions and the number of cross-region two-qubit gates, shrinking the work left for the global phase. The global phase inherits qubit positions from the local phase through constraints (2)–(5) and finishes the remaining gates over the whole plane. Across array sizes from $16\times16$ to $64\times64$, PAC is reported to compile all 60–90 qubit random 3-regular circuits while keeping average circuit depth between 12.6 and 13.95 layers, compared with 12 to 12.8 for DPQA.

Load-bearing premise

The claim depends on the physical assumption that the two halves of the AOD array can be operated simultaneously without any gate in one region interfering with a gate in the other, yet the paper never checks the inter-region separation against the Rydberg blockade radius.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Compilation time for 60–90 qubit commuting circuits would drop from thousands of seconds to tens or hundreds of seconds on arrays from $16\times16$ to $64\times64$.
  • Circuits that currently time out after 10,000 seconds under DPQA, most of the 80- and 90-qubit benchmarks, become compilable within a few minutes under PAC.
  • The speedup grows with array size, so the method becomes more useful as neutral atom hardware scales toward larger arrays.
  • Circuit depth stays comparable to DPQA within about one layer, so the speedup does not appear to come at the cost of longer execution schedules.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This divide-and-conquer strategy likely transfers to other reconfigurable architectures beyond the specific SLM/AOD setup, since the key ingredient is physical independence of regions rather than a particular trap technology.
  • The reported advantage may depend on the sparse structure of 3-regular graph benchmarks; dense or all-to-all circuits could produce many cross-region edges and reduce the speedup, a testable extension.
  • For non-commutable circuits the method would need an extra commuting step or dependency handling; measuring that overhead is a natural next experiment.
  • A hardware-level check of simultaneous gates across the region boundary, rather than only the solver model, would confirm whether the parallel execution is physically valid.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Physics-Aware Compilation (PAC), a compile-time optimization for neutral atom quantum computers with AOD/SLM trap architectures. PAC splits the hardware plane into two diagonal regions and, using an improved Kernighan–Lin algorithm, partitions the input commuting circuit into local sub-circuits (one per region) and a global sub-circuit crossing regions. The local sub-circuits are compiled independently in parallel, resolved qubits are parked in SLM traps, and the remaining global sub-circuit is compiled over the whole array; the results are merged into a single schedule. The authors evaluate PAC against the DPQA baseline on random 3-regular graph circuits (60–90 qubits) across array sizes from 16×16 to 64×64, reporting up to 78.5× speedup on 16×16, up to 202.81× on 24×24, and comparable average circuit depth (e.g., 12.6 vs. 12 on 16×16), with code made openly available.

Significance. If the reported results are valid, PAC addresses a real bottleneck: DPQA-style solver-based compilation of neutral atom circuits can take thousands of seconds for 70–80 qubits, and a method that cuts this to tens or hundreds of seconds while preserving circuit depth would be practically valuable for QAOA and related commuting-circuit workloads. The paper has several strengths: it is evaluated on the same benchmark family as the baseline, it compares against an external state-of-the-art method rather than a self-derived variant, the open-sourced code supports reproducibility, and the decomposition idea is intuitive and plausible. However, the central physical-validity claim—that the independently compiled local regions can be executed in parallel without interference—is asserted rather than demonstrated, and the experimental presentation has gaps (inconsistent baseline timings, incomplete quality comparison for timeout cases) that must be addressed before the speedup and quality claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Algorithm 1, Eq. (3)] The load-bearing premise that the two local regions can be compiled and executed independently without physical interference is not established. The parallel execution constraint in §2.1 requires that no third qubit be within a certain vicinity of any two-qubit gate. Algorithm 1 compiles QC1 on A1 and QC2 on A2 as separate subproblems with no cross-region constraint on gate placement, and the two regions are diagonal quadrants whose boundary sites are one grid step apart; whether that distance exceeds the restriction-zone radius is never stated or verified. Similarly, in the global phase, Eq. (3) only forbids an active qubit from occupying the same SLM coordinate as a resolved qubit; it does not keep a resolved SLM-trapped qubit out of the restriction zone of an active two-qubit gate. Consequently the merged schedule produced by PAC may violate the parallel execution constraint even if each sub-schedule is internally valid, while DPQA's global solve enforces that constraint. The reported speedups and depth comparisons could therefore be against a schedule that is not executable on hardware. Please add explicit distance constraints between regions and between resolved and active qubits (or a post-hoc validation of the merged schedule against the §2.1 constraints), and report the physical discretization spacing used in the experiments.
  2. [Tables 1 and 2] The DPQA baseline timings are inconsistent across tables for the same circuits. For example, rand3reg_70_0 is reported as 2906.7 s in Table 1 but 5539.06 s in Table 2 on a 16×16 array, and rand3reg_80_3 is 9696.3 s in Table 1 but times out (TO) in Table 2. The paper does not state whether Table 1 reproduces numbers from the DPQA publication, whether Tables 2–3 and C.4–C.7 are runs on the authors' own machine, or why the environment differs. Since every speedup ratio is computed against these baseline times, the provenance and reproducibility of the DPQA timings is essential. Please clarify the source of each DPQA timing, report the machine and software versions used for both PAC and DPQA, and, if feasible, report variance over repeated runs.
  3. [§4.2, Tables 2–3, abstract] The claim that PAC 'maintains comparable circuit quality' is only supported for circuits on which DPQA terminates within the 10,000 s timeout (mostly 60–70 qubits and a few 80-qubit cases). For 90-qubit circuits, DPQA times out in every configuration and no baseline depth (N_L,baseline) is available, so the layer-reduction ratio in Eq. (6) is undefined. The abstract and highlights state the quality claim unconditionally. Please restrict the quality-comparison claim to the DPQA-solvable subset, or provide a fair proxy for the timeout cases (for example, the best depth found by DPQA within a bounded budget, or a theoretical depth lower bound), and explicitly state which circuits enter each average.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Algorithm 3] The termination condition `if (Q_s1 == {} and Q_s2 == {}) or not swap_flag or n_iter ≤ Max_iter then break` is inverted: with n_iter initialized to 0, the condition `n_iter ≤ Max_iter` is true immediately, so the loop never performs a swap. The accompanying text describes continuing until the swap limit is reached; the pseudocode should use `n_iter > Max_iter` (or `>=`).
  2. [Algorithm 2] The pseudocode contains a duplicated branch (`e[0] in Q1 and e[1] in Q2`) and the set-update lines such as `Qa1∪{e[0]};` do not assign the result back to Qa1. These should be `Qa1 = Qa1 ∪ {e[0]}` and the second occurrence of the Q1/Q2 branch should be removed.
  3. [§3.3 and Appendix B] The free parameters k in Eq. (1) and Max_iter in Algorithms 2–3 are never given values for the experiments, and the partition ratio is fixed at 1/2 without discussion. Please report the chosen values and, ideally, a brief sensitivity analysis for k.
  4. [Appendix B] All timings appear to be single runs with no error bars or repeated measurements. Since the speedup figures are central to the paper, please either provide statistics over multiple runs (at least three) or explicitly justify why single-run measurement is appropriate for the comparison.
  5. [Figures 7 and 9] The y-axis label in Figure 7 is rendered as a series of escaped Unicode tokens (`/uni00000034/...`), and Figure 9's y-axis description is incomplete. The figures should be regenerated with readable labels.
  6. [§5] The Discussion acknowledges the limitation of equal-size partitioning and suggests future work on circuit-aware and fidelity-aware strategies, but it does not mention the restriction-zone/inter-region interference issue raised in the major comments; this should be listed as a limitation or resolved by the requested validation.
  7. [§2.3] There is a typo, 'as qquantum circuits continue to grow', which should be corrected to 'as quantum circuits'.
  8. [Abstract and Highlights] The abstract highlights a 78.5× speedup on 16×16 arrays while the Highlights and Section 5 also cite 202.81× from the 24×24 configuration; please ensure the headline numbers are presented with their array sizes consistently throughout the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PAC's speedups are direct runtime comparisons against the external DPQA baseline on shared benchmark circuits.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical compilation-time comparisons against DPQA [20], an external baseline by Tan et al., using the same random 3-regular graph benchmark circuits. The headline speedups (up to 78.5x, 202.81x, 139.16x) are measured wall-clock solution times, not quantities reconstructed from fitted parameters. The Kernighan-Lin loss function in Eq. (1) is a design objective with a free weight k, but k is not fitted to the benchmark results and the reported gains are not derived from minimizing that loss; they are observed compilation times. The circuit-depth comparison is a direct count of produced layers, and the merging rule 'total circuit depth calculated as the maximum depth between the two local phases plus the depth of the global phase' is an explicit definitional composition, not a hidden reuse of the input. The paper adopts 'the same variable definitions as DPQA' and 'the same core solver mechanisms as DPQA,' but these are shared methodology with an external prior work, not self-citation, and the speedup claim does not reduce to those shared mechanisms. The assertion that 'AOD arrays in separate regions can operate independently without interference' is a physical assumption that may be a correctness risk if inter-region distances are unchecked, but it is not circular: it is not equivalent to the claimed speedup by construction, and no fitted or self-cited result is renamed as a prediction. No load-bearing self-citation chain, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' own prior work, and no fitted input called a prediction were found. The evaluation is self-contained against an external baseline, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's quantitative claims depend on a handful of user-chosen parameters (k, Max_iter, equal halves) and on hardware assumptions that are plausible but unverified (inter-region independence, commutable circuits, composition legality). There are no invented physical entities.

free parameters (3)
  • k = not reported
    Weight parameter in the loss function L = k(N_f1+N_f2) + (1-k)(N_E,cross), Eq (1). It balances active qubits vs cross-region gates and must be chosen by the user; no value is given in the paper, so the reported speedups may depend on untested tuning.
  • Max_iter = not reported
    Maximum number of swaps in Algorithm 3; controls termination and solution quality. Not specified, so the partition quality could vary with this hidden setting.
  • Partition ratio (1/2) = 1/2 (equal halves)
    The hardware plane is always divided into two equal-sized regions. The paper itself notes this may not be optimal for all circuit topologies (Section 5). This is a design choice rather than a fitted constant, but it shapes all results.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption AOD arrays in separate hardware regions can operate independently without interference
    Stated in Section 3.2 ('AOD arrays in separate regions can operate independently without interference') but never checked against the Rydberg blockade radius or parallel execution constraint; simultaneous local-phase gates could interfere across the boundary.
  • domain assumption Input circuits are commutable
    Algorithms 1 and 2 take a 'Commutable Quantum Circuit' as input, and the benchmarks are single-layer 3-regular graph circuits where two-qubit gates commute. The method's correctness for general non-commuting circuits is not addressed.
  • ad hoc to paper Composition of local and global phases yields a globally valid schedule
    The paper imposes consistency constraints (2) to (5) but does not provide a formal proof that concatenating the local and global solver outputs satisfies all AOD crossing, parallel execution, and Rydberg constraints on the full array.
  • standard math Z3 Max-SAT solver solutions are correct for the subproblems
    PAC relies on the same core solver as DPQA (Appendix B); solver correctness is assumed.
  • standard math Kernighan-Lin iterative swapping finds a good partition
    The improved K-L algorithm is a heuristic; the paper does not prove bounds on the quality of the partition relative to the optimal cut.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physics-Aware Compilation for Parallel Quantum Circuit Execution on Neutral Atom Arrays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CZMQ3QU6

@misc{pith2026250513049,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physics-Aware Compilation for Parallel Quantum Circuit Execution on Neutral Atom Arrays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CZMQ3QU6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13049}
}
read the original abstract

Neutral atom quantum computers are one of the most promising quantum architectures, offering advantages in scalability, dynamic reconfigurability, and potential for large-scale implementations. These characteristics create unique compilation challenges, especially regarding compilation efficiency while adapting to hardware flexibility. However, existing methods encounter significant performance bottlenecks at scale, hindering practical applications. We propose Physics-Aware Compilation (PAC), a method that improves compilation efficiency while preserving the inherent flexibility of neutral atom systems. PAC introduces physics-aware hardware plane partitioning that strategically allocates hardware resources based on physical device characteristics like AOD and SLM trap properties and qubit mobility constraints. Additionally, it implements parallel quantum circuit division with an improved Kernighan-Lin algorithm that enables simultaneous execution across independent regions while maintaining circuit fidelity. Our experimental evaluation compares PAC with state-of-the-art methods across increasingly larger array sizes ranging from 16x16 to 64x64 qubits. Results demonstrate that PAC achieves up to 78.5x speedup on 16x16 arrays while maintaining comparable circuit quality. PAC's compilation efficiency advantage increases with system scale, demonstrating scalability for practical quantum applications on larger arrays. PAC explores a viable path for practical applications of neutral atom quantum computers by effectively addressing the tension between compilation efficiency and hardware flexibility.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13049 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A reconfigurable atom array with AOD and SLM traps. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of AOD crossing constraint violation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qubit transition from AOD to SLM trap for entanglement formation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Workflow of PAC. • Hardware Plane Partitioning divides the 2D hardware plane into independent sections based on physical device characteristics. This partitioning leverages the natural boundaries created by physical con￾straints to reduce the solution space while enabl…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Demonstration of hardware plane partitioning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Demonstration of quantum circuit division. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Heatmap visualization of PAC speedup factors relative to DPQA across varying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ablation study of the Quantum Circuit Division process. (a) and (b) are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of compilation times between DPQA and PAC on a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. P. Harrigan, K. J. Sung, M. Neeley, K. J. Satzinger, F. Arute, K. Arya, J. Atalaya, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, S. Boixo, et al., Quantum approx- imate optimization of non-planar graph problems on a planar supercon- ducting processor, Nature Physics 17 (3) (2021) 332–336.doi:10.1038/ s41567-020-01105-y. URLhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-020-01105-y

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    G. A. Quantum, Collaborators*†, F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Ba- con, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, S. Boixo, M. Broughton, B. B. Buckley, et al., Hartree-Fock on a superconducting qubit quantum computer, Science 369 (6507) (2020) 1084–1089, publisher: American Association for the Ad- vancement of Science.doi:10.1126/science.abb9811. URLhttps://www.scien...

    doi:10.1126/science.abb9811 2020

  3. [3]

    Cerezo, et al., Variational quantum algorithms, Nature Reviews Physics 3 (9) (2021) 625–644, publisher: Nature Publishing Group.doi:10.1038/ s42254-021-00348-9

    M. Cerezo, et al., Variational quantum algorithms, Nature Reviews Physics 3 (9) (2021) 625–644, publisher: Nature Publishing Group.doi:10.1038/ s42254-021-00348-9. URLhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s42254-021-00348-9

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    F. Arute, et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature 574 (7779) (2019) 505–510, number: 7779 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5. URLhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1666-5

    doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5 2019

  5. [5]

    E. J. Thomas, V. N. Ciriano-Tejel, D. F. Wise, D. Prete, M. d. Kruijf, D. J. Ib- berson, G. M. Noah, A. Gomez-Saiz, M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, M. A. I. Johnson, J. J. L. Morton, Rapid cryogenic characterization of 1,024 integrated silicon quantum dot devices, Nature Electronics 8 (1) (2025) 75–83, publisher: Na- ture Publishing Group.doi:10.1038/s41928-024-013...

    doi:10.1038/s41928-024-01304-y 2025

  6. [6]

    D. Bluvstein, et al., A quantum processor based on coherent transport of entangled atom arrays, Nature 604 (7906) (2022) 451–456, publisher: Nature 27 Publishing Group.doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04592-6. URLhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04592-6

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04592-6 2022

  7. [7]

    B. Tan, J. Cong, Optimal Layout Synthesis for Quantum Computing, in: 2020 IEEE/ACM International Conference On Computer Aided Design (ICCAD), 2020, pp. 1–9, iSSN: 1558-2434. URLhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9256696

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    B. Tan, J. Cong, Optimal qubit mapping with simultaneous gate absorption, in: 2021 IEEE/ACM International Conference On Computer Aided Design (ICCAD), 2021, pp. 1–8, iSSN: 1558-2434.doi:10.1109/ICCAD51958.2021. 9643554. URLhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9643554

    arXiv 2021

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    W.-H. Lin, J. Kimko, B. Tan, N. Bjørner, J. Cong, Scalable Optimal Layout Synthesis for NISQ Quantum Processors, in: 2023 60th ACM/IEEE Design AutomationConference(DAC),2023, pp.1–6.doi:10.1109/DAC56929.2023. 10247760. URLhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10247760

    2023

  2. [10]

    G. Li, Y. Ding, Y. Xie, Tackling the Qubit Mapping Problem for NISQ-Era Quantum Devices, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Con- ference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, ASPLOS ’19, Association for Computing Machinery, N...

    2019

  3. [11]

    S. Niu, A. Suau, G. Staffelbach, A. Todri-Sanial, A Hardware-Aware Heuristic for the Qubit Mapping Problem in the NISQ Era, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 1 (2020) 1–14, arXiv:2010.03397 [quant-ph].doi:10. 1109/TQE.2020.3026544. URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2010.03397

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Huang, W.-K

    C.-Y. Huang, W.-K. Mak, Efficient Qubit Routing Using a Dynamically- Extract-and-Route Framework, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided De- sign of Integrated Circuits and Systems (2024) 1–1Conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Sy...

    2024

  5. [13]

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, K. H. Leung, X. Lv, M. Endres, A tweezer array with 6100 highly coherent atomic qubits, arXiv:2403.12021 28 [quant-ph] (Dec. 2024).doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.12021. URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2403.12021

    2024 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06927-3

    Bluvstein, et al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature 626 (7997) (2024) 58–65, publisher: Nature Publishing Group. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06927-3. URLhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06927-3

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Henriet, L

    L. Henriet, L. Beguin, A. Signoles, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, G.-O. Reymond, C. Jurczak, Quantum computing with neutral atoms, Quantum 4 (2020) 327, publisher: Verein zur Förderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quan- tenwissenschaften.doi:10.22331/q-2020-09-21-327. URLhttp...

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    J. M. Baker, et al., Exploiting long-distance interactions and tolerating atom loss in neutral atom quantum architectures, in: Proceedings of the 48th An- nual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, ISCA ’21, IEEE Press, Virtual Event, Spain, 2021, pp. 818–831.doi:1...

    2021

  9. [17]

    Y. Li, Y. Zhang, M. Chen, X. Li, P. Xu, Timing-Aware Qubit Mapping and Gate Scheduling Adapted to Neutral Atom Quantum Computing, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 42 (11) (2023) 3768–3780, conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Compu...

    2023

  10. [18]

    Patel, D

    T. Patel, D. Silver, D. Tiwari, GRAPHINE: Enhanced Neutral Atom Quan- tum Computing using Application-Specific Rydberg Atom Arrangement, in: Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, StorageandAnalysis, SC’23, AssociationforComputi...

    2023

  11. [19]

    B. Tan, D. Bluvstein, M. D. Lukin, J. Cong, Qubit Mapping for Reconfig- urable Atom Arrays, in: Proceedings of the 41st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design, ACM, San Diego California, 2022, pp. 1–9.doi:10.1145/3508352.3549331. URLhttps://dl.acm.org/doi/1...

    2022

  12. [20]

    B. Tan, D. Bluvstein, M. Lukin, J. Cong, Compiling Quantum Circuits for Dynamically Field-Programmable Neutral Atoms Array Processors, Quantum 8 (2024) 1281.doi:10.22331/q-2024-03-14-1281

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Ludmir, T

    J. Ludmir, T. Patel, Parallax: A Compiler for Neutral Atom Quantum Com- puters under Hardware Constraints, arXiv:2409.04578 [quant-ph] (Oct. 2024). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2409.04578. URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2409.04578

    2024 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    Singh, S

    K. Singh, S. Anand, A. Pocklington, J. T. Kemp, H. Bernien, Dual-Element, Two-Dimensional Atom Array with Continuous-Mode Operation, Physical Re- view X 12 (1) (2022) 011040, publisher: American Physical Society.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.12.011040. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1...

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    M. L. Bonet, J. Levy, F. Manyà, Resolution for Max-SAT, Artificial Intelli- gence 171 (8) (2007) 606–618.doi:10.1016/j.artint.2007.03.001. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0004370207000422

    2007 doi

  16. [24]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, M. Sipser, Quantum Computation by Adiabatic Evolution, arXiv:quant-ph/0001106 (Jan. 2000).doi:10.48550/ arXiv.quant-ph/0001106. URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0001106

    doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    S. Ebadi, et al., Quantum optimization of maximum independent set using Ry- dberg atom arrays, Science 376 (6598) (2022) 1209–1215, publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science.doi:10.1126/science.abo6587. URLhttps://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.a...

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.