Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

RISC-Q: A Generator for Real-Time Quantum Control System-on-Chips Compatible with RISC-V

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read RISC-Q is an open-source generator that builds RISC-V-compatible quantum control systems-on-chip and reports parity with QubiC and QICK at a fraction of the HDL.

desk verdict A genuinely useful open-source generator for quantum control SoCs whose performance-parity claim overreaches the unmeasured latency metrics, but the core generator contribution holds up. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14902 v1 pith:DIUBL56M submitted 2025-05-20 cs.AR quant-ph

Junyi Liu , Yi Lee , Haowei Deng , Connor Clayton , Gengzhi Yang , Xiaodi Wu This is my paper
classification cs.ARquant-ph
keywords quantumcontrolsystemssystem-on-chipdesignRISC-VSpinalHDLFPGARFSoChardware-softwareco-designautomation
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 biggest obstacle to scaling quantum control hardware is not the underlying electronics but the fragmented, hand-written way control chips are designed and programmed. It proposes RISC-Q, an open-source generator that produces Quantum Control System-on-Chip (QCSoC) designs from highly parameterized SpinalHDL modules and exposes a RISC-V-compatible programming interface, so control software can be written in C, C++, or Rust and custom hardware plugged in as modular peripherals. On a ZCU216 RFSoC prototype for superconducting qubits, the authors report a 500 MHz clock, 16 DACs, and 8 ADCs, matching QubiC and exceeding QICK, with comparable FPGA resource use and an HDL codebase roughly 75 percent smaller than either system. If this holds, quantum control hardware becomes something research groups can rapidly prototype and co-design with algorithms rather than a bespoke system rebuilt for each experiment.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the parameterized QCSoC generator itself: SpinalHDL meta-programming compiles high-level Scala descriptions into synthesizable hardware, with a VexiiRiscv-derived RISC-V core whose pipeline accepts custom instructions as isolated plugins. Timed FIFOs buffer RF signal parameters so the CPU can pre-schedule qubit pulses and thereby control multiple channels without cycle-exact programming; a TileLink interconnect, generated from a few lines of parameters, attaches memories and peripheral registers; and a parameterized carrier generator adapts sample throughput, for example 16 samples per cycle to the DAC and 4 samples per cycle from the ADC. Together these pieces make the control system a configurable object rather than a fixed netlist.

What would settle it

A head-to-head measurement on the same RFSoC platform of measurement-to-feedback latency, pulse-timing jitter, and readout fidelity, comparing RISC-Q's generated QCSoC with QubiC and QICK; if RISC-Q fails to meet the microsecond feedback and nanosecond timing constraints the two systems satisfy, the paper's parity claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single SpinalHDL-based generator with a RISC-V-compatible controller can match the core system characteristics of established quantum control SoCs while cutting development effort dramatically. The concretely demonstrated instance is a superconducting-qubit QCSoC synthesized on a Xilinx ZCU216 RFSoC: it runs at 500 MHz, drives 16 DACs and reads 8 ADCs, uses 74,551 LUTs and 172,925 FFs, and is programmed through a RISC-V pipeline with memory-mapped I/O and a custom 128-bit RF-launch instruction. The paper takes these configuration-level metrics as evidence of performance parity because fair benchmarking of feedback latency is, by its own account, difficult; its case studies instead show that the generator's parameterization and integration paths, timed FIFOs, plugin-based custom instructions, and TileLink memory wiring, enable design-space exploration and on-chip calibration protocols that existing custom-ISA systems make laborious.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that clock frequency, DAC/ADC channel counts, and LUT/FF utilization are acceptable stand-ins for real-time control performance, since the paper explicitly avoids a direct benchmark of feedback latency or pulse timing and instead compares these configuration-level system characteristics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Control programs for quantum experiments can be written in C, C++, or Rust and compiled with standard RISC-V toolchains, removing the need for vendor-specific assembly languages.
  • A single controller can coordinate multiple qubit channels by scheduling signal parameters into timed FIFOs, so the qubit-per-CPU count becomes a tunable parameter rather than a fixed architectural choice.
  • Custom real-time instructions, such as a 128-bit RF-launch instruction, can be added as isolated processor plugins without editing the core pipeline files.
  • Memory-mapped peripherals and on-chip memories attach through an automatically generated TileLink interconnect, which is what makes adding a new peripheral a matter of a few lines of code.
  • Conditional gates can be implemented branchlessly by preloading both candidate pulses and selecting one via a control register, avoiding the pipeline-stall latency caused by random measurement outcomes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, if the parity claim holds beyond configuration-level metrics, the same generator could be retargeted to trapped-ion and neutral-atom platforms by adding peripheral plugins for multi-tone carriers, image processing, and rearrangement scheduling, a direction the architecture anticipates but does not implement.
  • Beyond the paper, RISC-V compatibility suggests that a quantum control operating system with scheduling, arbitration, and library abstractions could eventually sit on top of the generated hardware, an idea the paper hints at but does not develop.
  • Beyond the paper, a direct head-to-head benchmark of feedback latency, timing jitter, and readout fidelity on the same RFSoC board would either confirm or refute the implicit performance-parity claim, since the paper currently compares configuration-level metrics only.
  • Beyond the paper, the branchless conditional-gate mechanism points to a general pattern for compiling dynamic quantum circuits: precompute both branches and select by measurement, which could reduce real-time decision latency in quantum error correction feedback loops.
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 manuscript presents RISC-Q, an open-source SpinalHDL-based generator for quantum control system-on-chip (QCSoC) designs with a RISC-V-compatible controller. It describes a parameterized architecture for RF signal generation and decoding, MMIO and custom-instruction peripheral integration, TileLink-based memory integration, and a case-study implementation for superconducting qubits on a Xilinx ZCU216 RFSoC. The evaluation compares the generated prototype with QICK and QubiC in terms of clock frequency, DAC/ADC channel counts, FPGA resource utilization, and HDL line count, claiming comparable performance with roughly a 75% reduction in code size. The paper also demonstrates branchless conditional-gate execution and an on-chip calibration routine written in C.

Significance. If the central claims hold, RISC-Q would be a valuable open-source infrastructure for agile exploration of quantum control architectures, leveraging the RISC-V software ecosystem and SpinalHDL's parameterization to reduce development effort. The evaluation is externally benchmarked against QICK and QubiC rather than the authors' own prior work, and there are no fitted parameters or derived predictions that could introduce circularity. The principal weakness is that the 'performance on par' claim rests on static resource and frequency comparisons, while the latency and jitter metrics that the paper itself identifies as critical are not directly measured.

major comments (4)
  1. [V-A.2 (Performance)] The claim that the RISC-Q prototype 'replicates the performance' of QubiC and QICK is not supported by the presented evidence. The paper states that 'signal generation delay and feedback latency are critical performance metrics for quantum control' but then declines to measure them, comparing only clock frequency, channel counts, and resource utilization. These characteristics are necessary but not sufficient: the feedback path traverses a pipelined RISC-V core plus MMIO/TileLink writes whose latency and jitter are unquantified, and the branchless conditional-gate and calibration demonstrations in Sections V-B and V-C report no measured loop latency, throughput, or timing stability. I request either direct measurements of feedback latency, pulse timing error, and readout fidelity (or cycle-accurate simulation data), or a clearly weakened statement that the prototype matches QICK and QubiC in static architecture characteristics only.
  2. [V-A.1 (Development Effort)] The claimed 75% reduction in codebase size is obtained from raw HDL line counts that the authors themselves concede are inflated by legacy modules in the comparison systems. As reported, this is a weak proxy for development effort: it does not account for the scope of implemented functionality, the maturity of the codebases, or the fact that RISC-Q's line count is self-reported. Please provide a scope-matched comparison (for example, lines per core function) or an independent metric such as measured time to add a new peripheral, or qualify the claim as a code-volume comparison rather than a development-effort claim.
  3. [V-B and V-C (Case Studies)] The two case studies are presented as code-level capabilities, but no quantitative evidence is given that the branchless path actually reduces latency or that the on-chip calibration improves feedback speed. Since these demonstrations are listed as contribution 3, I request at least cycle counts or measured execution times for the branchless versus branch-based paths and for the calibration loop, so that the claimed latency benefits can be verified.
  4. [Introduction and Abstract] The claim that RISC-Q is 'the first open-source generator for QCSoC designs' needs a more careful delimitation against related open-source quantum control stacks such as ARTIQ/Sinara and against recent generator-style frameworks. As written, the claim appears to hinge on the meaning of 'generator,' but the paper does not define what distinguishes a generator from a parameterized hardware library in this context. Please clarify the definition and justify the priority claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II, opening paragraph] The phrase 'Fig. 1 refers to a more detailed modeling' should be reworded, for example to 'Fig. 1 shows a more detailed model.'
  2. [Section III-D (Programming Interface)] The code listings contain spacing artifacts such as '*( v o l a t i l e i n t 3 2 _ t *)' that should be cleaned up for readability.
  3. [Section V-A.3, Table I] QubiC is cited as [5] in Section II-E but as [24] in Table I; please unify the QubiC references to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Section V (Evaluation)] QICK and QubiC are repeatedly called 'state-of-the-art,' but no formal feature-coverage comparison is given; consider using 'representative open-source systems' to match the evidence presented.
  5. [Section IV-B.2 (Samples per Cycle)] The derivation of 16 samples per cycle for the DAC and 4 samples per cycle for the ADC follows from the 8 GHz and 2 GHz rates at a 500 MHz clock, but this connection is not stated explicitly; one clarifying sentence would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's evaluation is an external comparison against QICK and QubiC, with no fitted parameters, derived predictions, or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

RISC-Q does not claim to derive a numerical prediction from input data. Its central technical claims are (i) a SpinalHDL generator with RISC-V compatibility, and (ii) a prototype whose clock frequency, channel count, and FPGA utilization are measured after synthesis and compared with two external open-source systems, QICK and QubiC. These comparisons are not defined in terms of the quantities they purport to demonstrate: the resource-utilization and frequency figures come from synthesis/implementation of an independently written design, not from fitting those same figures into the comparison. The line-of-code reduction is self-reported but is a description of repository size, not an input used to define the performance outcome. No parameter is fitted to a subset of benchmarks and then restated as a prediction, and no load-bearing premise is justified solely by a citation to the present authors' prior work. Section V-A.2 is a limitation, not a circular step: it honestly notes that latency benchmarks are difficult and therefore compares 'core system characteristics such as clock frequency and the number of supported RF channels.' That means the headline 'replicates the performance' claim is broader than the evidence supports—a correctness/evidence concern—but it does not reduce by construction. The on-chip calibration and conditional-gate demonstrations are code-level capabilities, not renamings of the benchmark inputs. Accordingly, no circular step is present.

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

No fitted free parameters are used in the central demonstration; the configurable parameters are design-time choices derived from clock and data rates. The main assumptions are that the generic QCSoC decomposition holds, that resource and clock proxies stand in for real-time performance, and that line counts proxy development effort.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Quantum control systems can be generically decomposed into RF signal processors, controllers, custom accelerators, and communication modules.
    This decomposition underlies RISC-Q's modular architecture in Section II and Figure 1. If a control platform requires components outside this model, the generator's generality would break.
  • domain assumption Design parameters such as samples per cycle, qubits per CPU, and memory allocations can be chosen independently without hidden interactions that break timing.
    The parameterization claim in Section IV-B assumes that module latencies and resource usage compose predictably. No timing closure evidence is presented for multiple parameter settings beyond the single prototype.
  • domain assumption HDL source-line count is a meaningful proxy for development effort across QICK, QubiC, and RISC-Q.
    Used in Section V-A.1 to support the reduced-development-effort claim. The authors acknowledge that legacy and unused components may inflate QICK and QubiC line counts, making this proxy weak.
  • domain assumption Synthesis resource utilization and clock frequency on the same RFSoC class are comparable proxies for real-time control performance.
    Section V-A.2 states that direct benchmarking is difficult and therefore compares core system characteristics. This trades away validation of actual real-time behavior such as feedback latency and jitter.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RISC-Q: A Generator for Real-Time Quantum Control System-on-Chips Compatible with RISC-V." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DIUBL56M

@misc{pith2026250514902,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RISC-Q: A Generator for Real-Time Quantum Control System-on-Chips Compatible with RISC-V},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DIUBL56M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14902}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum computing imposes stringent requirements for the precise control of large-scale qubit systems, including, for example, microsecond-latency feedback and nanosecond-precision timing of gigahertz signals -- demands that far exceed the capabilities of conventional real-time systems. The rapidly evolving and highly diverse nature of quantum control necessitates the development of specialized hardware accelerators. While a few custom real-time systems have been developed to meet the tight timing constraints of specific quantum platforms, they face major challenges in scaling and adapting to increasingly complex control demands -- largely due to fragmented toolchains and limited support for design automation. To address these limitations, we present RISC-Q -- an open-source flexible generator for Quantum Control System-on-Chip (QCSoC) designs, featuring a programming interface compatible with the RISC-V ecosystem. Developed using SpinalHDL, RISC-Q enables efficient automation of highly parameterized and modular QCSoC architectures, supporting agile and iterative development to meet the evolving demands of quantum control. We demonstrate that RISC-Q can replicate the performance of existing QCSoCs with significantly reduced development effort, facilitating efficient exploration of the hardware-software co-design space for rapid prototyping and customization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14902 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A Schematic Overview of the RISC-Q hardware architecture for Quantum Control System-on-Chip (QCSoC). The RFSP program refers to programs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Software and hardware stack of RISC-Q. Blue boxes indicate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. To measure a superconducting qubit, a readout pulse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: An example dataflow of superconducting qubit measurement in RISC-Q. RefTime is a 32-bit reference clock increased by 1 in every cycle for precise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Integration of memories and peripherals in RISC-Q. Red boxes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Custom instruction for RF signal generation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. NeuroQD: A Learning-Based Simulation Framework For Quantum Dot Devices

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A U-Net trained on one small quantum dot device predicts electrostatic potentials for devices up to 99 dots, giving a 1000x faster simulator that reproduces real-device tuning features.

  2. AtomFlow: An End-to-End FPGA-Based Control Architecture for Neutral Atom Quantum Computers

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An integrated FPGA pipeline co-locates atom detection and by-row rearrangement, streaming moves with 4 ms first-move and 25.3 ms end-to-end latency on 16×16 arrays.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Quantum error correction for quantum memories,

    B. M. Terhal, “Quantum error correction for quantum memories,” Rev. Mod. Phys. , vol. 87, pp. 307–346, Apr 2015. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.87.307

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.87.307 2015

  2. [2]

    Improving qubit coherence using closed-loop feedback,

    A. Vepsäläinen, R. Winik, A. H. Karamlou, J. Braumüller, A. D. Paolo, Y . Sung, B. Kannan, M. Kjaergaard, D. K. Kim, A. J. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, J. L. Yoder, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, “Improving qubit coherence using closed-loop feedback,” Nature Communications, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 1932, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s414...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-022-29287-4 1932

  3. [3]

    Combining quantum processors with real-time classical communication,

    A. Carrera Vazquez, C. Tornow, D. Ristè, S. Woerner, M. Takita, and D. J. Egger, “Combining quantum processors with real-time classical communication,” Nature, vol. 636, no. 8041, pp. 75–79, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08178-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08178-2 2024

  4. [4]

    Efficient long-range entanglement using dynamic circuits,

    E. Bäumer, V . Tripathi, D. S. Wang, P. Rall, E. H. Chen, S. Majumder, A. Seif, and Z. K. Minev, “Efficient long-range entanglement using dynamic circuits,” PRX Quantum, vol. 5, p. 030339, Aug 2024. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.030339

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.030339 2024

  5. [5]

    QubiC 2.0: An extensible open-source qubit control system capable of mid-circuit measurement and feed- forward,

    Y . Xu, G. Huang, N. Fruitwala, A. Rajagopala, R. K. Naik, K. Nowrouzi, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, “QubiC 2.0: An extensible open-source qubit control system capable of mid-circuit measurement and feed- forward,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.10333 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    The QICK (Quantum Instrumentation Control Kit): Readout and control for qubits and detectors,

    L. Stefanazzi, K. Treptow, N. Wilcer, C. Stoughton, C. Bradford, S. Uemura, S. Zorzetti, S. Montella, G. Cancelo, S. Sussman, A. Houck, S. Saxena, H. Arnaldi, A. Agrawal, H. Zhang, C. Ding, and D. I. Schuster, “The QICK (Quantum Instrumentation Control Kit): Readout and control for qubits and detectors,” Review of Scientific Instruments , 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    ARTIQ and Sinara: Open software and hardware stacks for quantum physics,

    G. Kasprowicz, P. Kulik, M. Gaska, T. Przywozki, K. Pozniak, J. Jarosin- ski, J. W. Britton, T. Harty, C. Balance, W. Zhang et al., “ARTIQ and Sinara: Open software and hardware stacks for quantum physics,” in Quantum 2.0. Optica Publishing Group, 2020, pp. QTu8B–14

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Latest developments in the Sinara open hardware ecosystem,

    P. Kulik, M. Sowi ´nski, G. Kasprowicz, D. Allcock, C. Ballance, S. Bour- deauducq, J. Britton, M. G ˛ aska, T. Harty, J. Jarosi ´nski et al. , “Latest developments in the Sinara open hardware ecosystem,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE). IEEE, 2022, pp. 799–802

    work page 2022

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    eQASM: An executable quantum instruction set architecture,

    X. Fu, L. Riesebos, M. Rol, J. Van Straten, J. Van Someren, N. Kham- massi, I. Ashraf, R. Vermeulen, V . Newsum, K. Loh et al. , “eQASM: An executable quantum instruction set architecture,” in 2019 IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA). ...

    2019

  2. [10]

    QiCells: A modular rfsoc-based approach to interface superconducting quantum bits,

    R. Gebauer, N. Karcher, M. Güler, and O. Sander, “QiCells: A modular rfsoc-based approach to interface superconducting quantum bits,” ACM transactions on reconfigurable technology and systems , vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 1–23, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    HiSEP-Q: A highly scalable and efficient quantum control processor for superconducting qubits,

    X. Guo, K. Qin, and M. Schulz, “HiSEP-Q: A highly scalable and efficient quantum control processor for superconducting qubits,” in 2023 IEEE 41st International Conference on Computer Design (ICCD) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 86–93

    2023

  4. [12]

    Gemmini: Enabling systematic deep- learning architecture evaluation via full-stack integration,

    H. Genc, S. Kim, A. Amid, A. Haj-Ali, V . Iyer, P. Prakash, J. Zhao, D. Grubb, H. Liew, H. Mao et al., “Gemmini: Enabling systematic deep- learning architecture evaluation via full-stack integration,” in 2021 58th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 769–774

    2021

  5. [13]

    AHA: An agile approach to the design of coarse-grained reconfigurable accelerators and compilers,

    K. Koul, J. Melchert, K. Sreedhar, L. Truong, G. Nyengele, K. Zhang, Q. Liu, J. Setter, P.-H. Chen, Y . Mei, M. Strange, R. Daly, C. Donovick, A. Carsello, T. Kong, K. Feng, D. Huff, A. Nayak, R. Setaluri, J. Thomas, N. Bhagdikar, D. Durst, Z. Myers, N. Tsiskaridze, S. Richard...

    2023

  6. [14]

    SpinalHDL,

    “SpinalHDL,” https://github.com/SpinalHDL/SpinalHDL, 2025, [Ac- cessed April-20-2025]

    2025

  7. [15]

    A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits,

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, “A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits,” Applied physics reviews , vol. 6, no. 2, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold,

    G. Q. AI et al. , “Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold,” Nature, vol. 638, no. 8052, p. 920, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Demonstrating real-time and low-latency quantum error correction with superconducting qubits,

    L. Caune, L. Skoric, N. S. Blunt, A. Ruban, J. McDaniel, J. A. Valery, A. D. Patterson, A. V . Gramolin, J. Majaniemi, K. M. Barnes et al. , “Demonstrating real-time and low-latency quantum error correction with superconducting qubits,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05202 , 2024

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Half-minute-scale atomic coherence and high relative stability in a tweezer clock,

    A. W. Young, W. J. Eckner, W. R. Milner, D. Kedar, M. A. Norcia, E. Oelker, N. Schine, J. Ye, and A. M. Kaufman, “Half-minute-scale atomic coherence and high relative stability in a tweezer clock,” Nature, vol. 588, no. 7838, pp. 408–413, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Practical trainable temporal postprocessor for multistate quantum mea- surement,

    S. A. Khan, R. Kaufman, B. Mesits, M. Hatridge, and H. E. Türeci, “Practical trainable temporal postprocessor for multistate quantum mea- surement,” PRX Quantum, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 020364, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    QubiCML: ML- powered real-time quantum state discrimination enabling mid-circuit measurements,

    N. R. V ora, Y . Xu, A. Hasim, N. Fruitwala, N. Nguyen, H. Liao, J. Balewski, A. Rajagopala, K. Nowrouzi, Q. Ji et al., “QubiCML: ML- powered real-time quantum state discrimination enabling mid-circuit measurements,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing a...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Micro Blossom: Accelerated minimum-weight perfect matching decoding for quantum error correc- tion,

    Y . Wu, N. Liyanage, and L. Zhong, “Micro Blossom: Accelerated minimum-weight perfect matching decoding for quantum error correc- tion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14787 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Accelerating the assembly of defect-free atomic arrays with maximum parallelisms,

    S. Wang, W. Zhang, T. Zhang, S. Mei, Y . Wang, J. Hu, and W. Chen, “Accelerating the assembly of defect-free atomic arrays with maximum parallelisms,” Physical Review Applied, vol. 19, no. 5, p. 054032, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Design of an FPGA-based neutral atom rearrangement accelerator for quantum computing,

    X. Guo, J. Winklmann, D. Stober, A. Elsharkawy, and M. Schulz, “Design of an FPGA-based neutral atom rearrangement accelerator for quantum computing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.12401 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Distributed archi- tecture for FPGA-based superconducting qubit control,

    N. Fruitwala, G. Huang, Y . Xu, A. Rajagopala, A. Hashim, R. K. Naik, K. Nowrouzi, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, “Distributed archi- tecture for FPGA-based superconducting qubit control,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15260, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Scalable quantum error correction for surface codes using FPGA,

    N. Liyanage, Y . Wu, A. Deters, and L. Zhong, “Scalable quantum error correction for surface codes using FPGA,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , vol. 1. IEEE, 2023, pp. 916–927

    2023

  18. [26]

    Fusion Blossom: Fast MWPM decoders for QEC,

    Y . Wu and L. Zhong, “Fusion Blossom: Fast MWPM decoders for QEC,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 1. IEEE, 2023, pp. 928–938

    2023

  19. [27]

    General tensor network decoding of 2D Pauli codes,

    C. T. Chubb, “General tensor network decoding of 2D Pauli codes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.04125 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Scalable neural network decoders for higher dimensional quantum codes,

    N. P. Breuckmann and X. Ni, “Scalable neural network decoders for higher dimensional quantum codes,” Quantum, vol. 2, p. 68, 2018. 10

    2018

  21. [29]

    Symmetries for a high-level neural decoder on the toric code,

    T. Wagner, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß, “Symmetries for a high-level neural decoder on the toric code,” Physical Review A , vol. 102, no. 4, p. 042411, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Transformer-QEC: Quantum error correction code decoding with transferable transformers,

    H. Wang, P. Liu, K. Shao, D. Li, J. Gu, D. Z. Pan, Y . Ding, and S. Han, “Transformer-QEC: Quantum error correction code decoding with transferable transformers,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16082, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    OpenQASM 3: A broader and deeper quantum assembly language,

    A. Cross, A. Javadi-Abhari, T. Alexander, N. De Beaudrap, L. S. Bishop, S. Heidel, C. A. Ryan, P. Sivarajah, J. Smolin, J. M. Gambetta et al. , “OpenQASM 3: A broader and deeper quantum assembly language,” ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing , vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1–50, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    VexiiRiscv,

    “VexiiRiscv,” https://github.com/SpinalHDL/VexiiRiscv, 2025, [Ac- cessed April-20-2025]

    2025

  25. [33]

    “PYNQ,” https://www.pynq.io/, 2025, [Accessed April-20-2025]

    2025

  26. [34]

    H. M. Cook, Productive design of extensible on-chip memory hierar- chies. University of California, Berkeley, 2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    Diplomatic design patterns: A TileLink case study,

    H. Cook, W. Terpstra, and Y . Lee, “Diplomatic design patterns: A TileLink case study,” in 1st Workshop on Computer Architecture Re- search with RISC-V , vol. 23, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    VexRiscv,

    “VexRiscv,” https://github.com/SpinalHDL/VexRiscv, 2025, [Accessed April-20-2025]

    2025

  29. [37]

    Understanding quantum control processor capabilities and limitations through circuit characterization,

    A. Butko, G. Michelogiannakis, S. Williams, C. Iancu, D. Donofrio, J. Shalf, J. Carter, and I. Siddiqi, “Understanding quantum control processor capabilities and limitations through circuit characterization,” in 2020 International Conference on Rebooting Computing (ICRC). IEEE...

    2020

  30. [38]

    Improving qubit coherence using closed-loop feedback,

    A. Vepsäläinen, R. Winik, A. H. Karamlou, J. Braumüller, A. D. Paolo, Y . Sung, B. Kannan, M. Kjaergaard, D. K. Kim, A. J. Melville et al., “Improving qubit coherence using closed-loop feedback,” Nature Communications, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 1932, 2022

    1932

  31. [39]

    On-demand electrical control of spin qubits,

    W. Gilbert, T. Tanttu, W. H. Lim, M. Feng, J. Y . Huang, J. D. Cifuentes, S. Serrano, P. Y . Mai, R. C. Leon, C. C. Escott et al. , “On-demand electrical control of spin qubits,” Nature Nanotechnology, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 131–136, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.