Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 3 cited by

Distributed Quantum Circuit Cutting for Hybrid Quantum-Classical High-Performance Computing

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quantum circuit cutting can be distributed across CPUs, GPUs, and QPUs at near-ideal scale, reaching a 54.4x speedup on 64 nodes.

desk verdict A credible systems paper on a distributed circuit-cutting library that needs a correctness validation of the reconstructed results before its performance numbers can be fully trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01184 v2 pith:KAIALG7V submitted 2025-05-02 cs.DC quant-ph

Mar Tejedor , Berta Casas , Javier Conejero , Alba Cervera-Lierta , Rosa M. Badia This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DCquant-ph
keywords quantumcircuitcuttinghybridquantum-classicalcomputinghigh-performancedistributedtask-basedprogramminggraphrepresentationofcircuitswiregatepartitioning
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

Qdislib is a distributed quantum circuit cutting library that splits large circuits into smaller subcircuits, executes them in parallel on CPUs, GPUs, local quantum processors, and cloud quantum processors, and reconstructs the original expectation value from the pieces. The paper's central claim is that this makes circuit cutting a practical primitive for hybrid quantum-classical high-performance computing: a 96-qubit hardware-efficient circuit with four cuts reaches a 54.4x speedup on 64 nodes, and the library's automatic cut finder finds fewer cuts in less time than the standard Qiskit cutting addon. The authors further claim that cut subcircuits are equivalent to the original circuit, so the resulting expectation value matches what the uncut circuit would produce. If these claims hold, circuit cutting becomes a way to extend both classical simulation and small quantum hardware to circuits larger than any single device can hold.

What carries the argument

The central object is the directed acyclic graph (DAG) representation of the quantum circuit, which gives Qdislib a software-agnostic handle for cutting, partitioning, and reassembly. On top of that graph sit two cutting mechanisms: wire cutting, which splits a qubit wire and reconstructs the observable with Pauli eigenstate preparations and 8^k combinations, and gate cutting, which decomposes a two-qubit gate into local operations with intermediate measurements and 6^k combinations. The graph also feeds the FindCut algorithm, which runs several graph partitioners (Kernighan-Lin, Girvan-Newman, spectral decomposition, and METIS) and scores their cuts with a loss function that trades number of cuts, number of resulting components, and subcircuit qubit count. The final load-bearing piece is the task-based runtime PyCOMPSs, which schedules the generated subcircuits across CPUs, GPUs, and quantum processors and collects the results for reconstruction. This combination is what the paper argues turns circuit cutting from a theoretical decomposition into a scalable hybrid execution model.

What would settle it

Run a circuit such as the 96-qubit hardware-efficient ansatz uncut on a statevector simulator to obtain the exact expectation value of Z⊗n, then run Qdislib's cut workflow on the same circuit with the same shot count and compare the reconstructed value; any disagreement beyond sampling error would show the pipeline is biased.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery being argued for is that circuit cutting can be engineered into a distributed, hardware-agnostic workflow without sacrificing correctness or scalability. Qdislib converts a quantum circuit into a directed acyclic graph, lets the user mark or automatically find wire cuts and gate cuts, generates all 8^k wire-cut or 6^k gate-cut subcircuit instances, and dispatches them through a task-based runtime to whatever classical or quantum backends are available. The reconstruction of the expectation value uses the quasi-probability coefficients from gate cutting and the Pauli-basis reconstruction from wire cutting. On the benchmarks presented, the library is said to scale almost linearly with nodes for a 96-qubit hardware-efficient ansatz and to outperform the Qiskit cutting addon in cut count and time on random circuits. The paper also claims successful hybrid execution with subcircuits simultaneously on CPUs, GPUs, a local 5-qubit processor, and a cloud quantum processor.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes, without an experimental check, that the full cut-and-reconstruction pipeline produces expectation values identical to the original uncut circuit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 96-qubit hardware-efficient circuit cut into four fragments simulates with near-ideal parallel speedup, so the practical limit of noise-free classical emulation rises as HPC nodes are added.
  • Circuits too large for any available quantum chip can still be run by splitting them into fragments that fit small QPUs, at the cost of an exponential number of subcircuit executions and a classical reconstruction step.
  • A single hybrid job can place subcircuits on CPUs, GPUs, a local QPU, and a cloud QPU; the sequential service time of the quantum chips, not the classical side, sets the wall-clock floor.
  • Because FindCut returns fewer cuts than the standard Qiskit cutting addon on the random-circuit benchmark, the reconstruction overhead is lower for the same hardware constraint.
  • Releasing the library as open source means the scaling results and cut-finding behavior can be reproduced and extended to other simulators and devices.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct fidelity check—comparing reconstructed expectation values with values from the uncut circuit at the same shot count—would establish whether the reported speedups produce unbiased outputs, and is the natural next experiment.
  • Since subcircuit count grows as 6^k or 8^k, cutting pays off only when each subcircuit is expensive enough to amortize the reconstruction; the paper's 32-qubit results already hint that extra cuts can hurt small circuits, and the same trade-off should sharpen on slower backends.
  • The DAG-based scheduling model is not tied to cutting; the same runtime could schedule variational algorithms or error-mitigation jobs, deciding online which parts run classically and which on quantum hardware.
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 introduces Qdislib, an open-source distributed circuit-cutting library built on PyCOMPSs for hybrid quantum-classical HPC workflows. The library represents circuits as DAGs, supports both wire and gate cutting, offers an automatic cut-finding function (FindCut) based on graph partitioning heuristics, and can dispatch subcircuits to CPUs, GPUs, local QPUs, and cloud QPUs. The evaluation benchmarks hardware-efficient ansatz and random circuits on MareNostrum 5, reporting execution times, speedups, CPU/GPU comparisons, hybrid executions, and a comparison with IBM CKT for cut selection.

Significance. If the central claims hold, Qdislib would be a useful open-source contribution: it demonstrates that circuit cutting can be orchestrated by a task-based runtime across heterogeneous classical and quantum backends, and its near-ideal scaling results on a 96-qubit HEA circuit are concrete evidence for the practicality of distributed circuit cutting. The paper explicitly builds on established quasi-probability reconstruction formulas from known references rather than deriving new theory, and it ships an open-source implementation with a reproducibility link. However, the significance is conditional on the correctness of the cut/reconstruct pipeline, and the current manuscript provides no direct correctness validation; all benchmark evidence is timing-based. The paper also relies on single-run measurements and an under-specified loss function, so the performance and cut-quality claims need strengthening before the central contribution can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-B and Section IV] The manuscript asserts in Section III-B that the cut-and-reconstruct process 'ensures that the results of the cut procedure are equivalent to the behavior of the original circuit,' but it reports no experiment that compares the reconstructed expectation value of the Z-tensor observable with the value obtained from the uncut circuit. All benchmarks in Section IV report execution times only. Because gate cutting is quasi-probabilistic and reconstruction uses finite-shot estimates amplified by quasi-probability coefficients, an implementation error in the DAG conversion, gate decomposition, subcircuit generation, or reconstruction formula would produce systematically wrong results without changing any reported timing. This is load-bearing: the speedups in Figures 7 and 9 and the hybrid times in Table I are only evidence for the advertised capability if the computed expectation values are correct. Please add correctness experiments for representative circuits and cut configurations, comparing reconstructed expectation values against direct simulation of the uncut circuit with the same shot count, and report the resulting statistical error.
  2. [Section IV and Figure 7] The performance claims, including the headline 54.4x speedup on 64 nodes in Figure 7, are based on what appear to be single executions without repeats or error bars. Circuit simulation runtimes, PyCOMPSs scheduling, QPU queue times, and cloud network latency can all vary significantly between runs, and the absence of repeated measurements makes it impossible to distinguish genuine scalability from runtime variance or one-off system effects. Please report at least multiple independent runs with mean and standard deviation (or median and range), and clearly define what is included in each timing, especially for QPU and cloud executions where queueing and communication overhead are part of the measured time.
  3. [Section III-C, Eq. (2), and Figure 11] The loss function in Eq. (2) has free weights alpha, beta, and gamma, and the default values are described only as producing 'a well-balanced cut.' The three terms 'min cuts,' 'max comp,' and 'min qubits' are not formally defined, and no normalization or scaling is specified, so the loss landscape and the comparison between gate cutting and wire cutting are not reproducible. This matters for the FindCut evaluation in Figure 11: the claim that Qdislib is faster than IBM CKT and finds fewer cuts is not supported without a precise statement of the weights, the search space, the termination criteria, and the methodology used for the IBM CKT comparison. Please specify the default weights, provide the definition of each loss term, and describe the controlled conditions under which the timings and cut counts in Figure 11 were obtained.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Section IV] The evaluation explicitly tests only gate cutting, despite the paper claiming support for wire cutting. Since wire-cutting reconstruction is a separate code path with different subcircuit generation and reconstruction formulas, at least a small correctness and performance sanity check for wire cutting should be included, or the manuscript should state more clearly that wire cutting is implemented but not benchmarked.
  2. [Section IV-D] The random circuits replace the original fSim gates with CZ gates and drop the 'supremacy' part of the name, but the text still says 'Google quantum supremacy circuit' is used. This is acceptable as a stated simplification, but the terminology should be tightened so that readers do not conflate the simplified circuits with the original supremacy circuits.
  3. [Table I] The header of Table I appears garbled in the provided text ('Qubits Cuts CPUs GPUs QPU Cloud QPU Time ncores ngpus nqubits nqubits (s)'). The units and column meanings should be made explicit and the table reformatted.
  4. [Section II-B] The wire-cutting resource count is described as 'eight pairs of subcircuits,' but the text later correctly states that the overhead scales as 8^k. The phrasing should be clarified to avoid implying that only eight total subcircuits are needed per cut.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including 'quantun,' 'Haddamard,' 'Hibert,' 'Kernigham Lin,' and 'This is is.' A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  6. [Section IV-C, Figure 8] The caption and text for Figure 8 say that the depth-68 circuit requires 'two cuts to isolate subcircuits cleanly' for each of the four cuts, but the resulting subcircuit sizes are stated without derivation. Please explain how the number of effective cuts is counted for the deeper circuit.
  7. [Section IV-E] In Figure 13, the QPU cloud execution times are shown as flat lines without any indication of queue time, calibration time, or number of shots used. Since these are single points, the apparent 'convergence' with CPU/GPU lines should be interpreted cautiously, and the text should state what is included in these times.
  8. [Reproducibility] The open-source repository is cited in a footnote, but no version, commit hash, or dependency manifest is provided. For a systems paper whose claims rest on software behavior, please provide a stable release identifier and instructions for reproducing the main benchmark figures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reconstruction formulas are imported from external prior work, and the scaling and FindCut claims are benchmark-based rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central capability is distributed execution of circuit cutting. The reconstruction formulas are explicitly attributed to external references: wire cutting to [6] (Peng et al.) and gate cutting to [8] (Mitarai and Fujii), with the paper stating that it 'employs reconstruction formulas based on quasi-probability decomposition [8] and wire cutting reconstruction [6].' These are not derived from quantities fitted in this paper, and neither reference is authored by the present group; they are independent published derivations. The FindCut loss function (Eq. 2) contains free weights alpha, beta, and gamma, but the paper does not fit those weights to a target output and then present that output as a prediction; instead, the weights are configurable heuristics, and the evaluation compares the resulting number of cuts against IBM CKT on fixed benchmark circuits. No uniqueness theorem from prior work by these authors is invoked to forbid alternative cuts, and no ansatz is smuggled in via a self-citation: the adopted gate decomposition is taken from an external source [8] and applied to CZ. Self-citations in the paper concern the PyCOMPSs runtime and related BSC infrastructure; those citations are references to a software system that the paper then exercises empirically in Section IV, so they are not load-bearing arguments that reduce the central claim to itself. The main weakness is not circularity: Section III-B asserts that the cut procedure is equivalent to the original circuit without reporting an experiment comparing reconstructed expectation values to the uncut simulation, and Figures 6-13 report only timings. That is an omitted correctness validation, which affects the evidentiary value of the benchmarks, but it is not a case of a derivation being equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The resource-heavy components are imported from cited work; the only paper-specific construction is the FindCut loss function and its undocumented weights.

free parameters (1)
  • Loss function weights alpha, beta, gamma = Not specified
    Equation (2) defines Loss = alpha * min cuts + beta * max comp + gamma * min qubits. The paper says defaults are 'well-balanced' but never reports their values, so FindCut results cannot be reproduced or sensitivity-tested.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Wire cutting and gate cutting reconstruction formulas from [6] and [8] are correct and applicable as implemented.
    Section II-B imports these results without re-derivation; the entire reconstruction phase depends on them.
  • domain assumption Gate cutting requires mid-circuit measurement and qubit reset on the target hardware.
    Section II-B.2 notes this requirement; the benchmarks assume Ona and IBM Cloud provide it.
  • standard math The graph partitioning algorithms (Kernighan-Lin, Girvan-Newman, spectral, METIS) behave as documented in NetworkX and METIS.
    Section III-C relies on these implementations without independent verification.
  • ad hoc to paper The loss function with default weights produces a 'well-balanced' cut.
    Section III-C gives no values or justification for the default weights, yet FindCut's selection depends on them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Distributed Quantum Circuit Cutting for Hybrid Quantum-Classical High-Performance Computing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KAIALG7V

@misc{pith2026250501184,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Distributed Quantum Circuit Cutting for Hybrid Quantum-Classical High-Performance Computing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KAIALG7V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01184}
}
read the original abstract

Most quantum computers today are constrained by hardware limitations, particularly the number of available qubits, causing significant challenges for executing large-scale quantum algorithms. Circuit cutting has emerged as a key technique to overcome these limitations by decomposing large quantum circuits into smaller subcircuits that can be executed independently and later reconstructed. In this work, we introduce Qdislib, a distributed and flexible library for quantum circuit cutting, designed to seamlessly integrate with hybrid quantum-classical high-performance computing (HPC) systems. Qdislib employs a graph-based representation of quantum circuits to enable efficient partitioning, manipulation and execution, supporting both wire cutting and gate cutting techniques. The library is compatible with multiple quantum computing libraries, including Qiskit and Qibo, and leverages distributed computing frameworks to execute subcircuits across CPUs, GPUs, and quantum processing units (QPUs) in a fully parallelized manner. We present a proof of concept demonstrating how Qdislib enables the distributed execution of quantum circuits across heterogeneous computing resources, showcasing its potential for scalable quantum-classical workflows.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01184 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Decomposition for cutting a Controlled-Z gate. Six subcircuits are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of a quantum circuit partitioned. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Circuit Cutting Qdislib workflow. on the most suitable resource—whether it be a CPU, GPU, or quantum processor—thereby optimizing performance and reducing overhead. III. QD I S L I B OVERVIEW Qdislib is a flexible and efficient library designed for quantum circuit cutting, enabling the execution of large quan￾tum circuits by partitioning them into smaller subcircuits. This approach allows circuits to be simulated or… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FindCut workflow in Qdislib. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Hybrid execution schema [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Execution time for HEA circuits with 4 cuts. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Speedup for the 96-qubit HEA circuit with 4 cuts. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Execution time for HEA circuits varying depth. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Random Circuit for 36 qubits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FindCut function comparison in Qdislib and IBM CKT for Random Circuits with a 15-qubit constraint. We used this benchmark to first evaluate the performance of the FindCut function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Execution time of circuits with cuts compared to use IBM Cloud [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. MOSAIQC: Mixed-topology-aware Optimization for Scalable Approximate noise-Informed Quantum circuit Cutting

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A heuristic circuit-cutting framework combining METIS, tabu search, and quadratic assignment reports faster runtimes and fewer cuts than Qiskit's add-on on tested benchmarks.

  2. MPStab: an hybrid stabilizers tensor-network quantum circuit simulator

    quant-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    MPStab implements hybrid stabilizer–MPO circuit simulation and shows it outperforms pure tensor networks on Clifford-heavy circuits with moderate magic at matched bond dimension.

  3. Scaling Portfolio Diversification with Quantum Circuit Cutting Techniques

    quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    QuantCut automatically selects gate cuts and reconstructs expectation values, enabling a 71-qubit QAOA portfolio diversification run, though it does not beat a classical heuristic.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms

    Kishor Bharti, Alba Cervera-Lierta, Thi Ha Kyaw, Tobias Haug, Sumner Alperin-Lea, Abhinav Anand, Matthias Degroote, Hermanni Heimonen, Jakob S Kottmann, Tim Menke, et al. Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms. Reviews of Modern Physics , 94(1):015004, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Towards real-world quantum networks: A review

    Shi-Hai Wei, Bo Jing, Xue-Ying Zhang, Jin-Yu Liao, Chen-Zhi Yuan, Bo-Yu Fan, Chen Lyu, Dian-Li Zhou, You Wang, Guang-Wei Deng, Hai- Zhi Song, Daniel Oblak, Guang-Can Guo, and Qiang Zhou. Towards real-world quantum networks: A review. Laser & Photonics Reviews , 16(3):0, January 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Badia, Javier Conejero, Carlos Diaz, Jorge Ejarque, Daniele Lezzi, Francesc-Josep Lordan, Cristian Ram ´on Cort ´es, and Ra ¨ul Sir- vent

    Rosa M. Badia, Javier Conejero, Carlos Diaz, Jorge Ejarque, Daniele Lezzi, Francesc-Josep Lordan, Cristian Ram ´on Cort ´es, and Ra ¨ul Sir- vent. Comp superscalar, an interoperable programming framework. SoftwareX, 3:32–36, 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Nielsen and I.L

    M.A. Nielsen and I.L. Chuang. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge Series on Information and the Natural Sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000

    work page 2000

  5. [5]

    A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states

    Rom ´an Or ´us. A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states. Annals of Physics , 349:117–158, October 2014

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Simulating large quantum circuits on a small quantum computer

    Tianyi Peng, Aram W Harrow, Maris Ozols, and Xiaodi Wu. Simulating large quantum circuits on a small quantum computer. Physical review letters, 125(15):150504, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Cutqc: using small quantum computers for large quantum circuit evaluations

    Wei Tang, Teague Tomesh, Martin Suchara, Jeffrey Larson, and Margaret Martonosi. Cutqc: using small quantum computers for large quantum circuit evaluations. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, ASPLOS ’21, pages 473 – 486, Virtual, April 2021. ACM

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Constructing a virtual two-qubit gate by sampling single-qubit operations

    Kosuke Mitarai and Keisuke Fujii. Constructing a virtual two-qubit gate by sampling single-qubit operations. New Journal of Physics , 23(2):023021, 2021. 1The release of Qdislib as open-source can be found in https://github.com/bsc-wdc/qdislib

    work page 2021

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Pycompss: Parallel computational workflows in python

    Enric Tejedor, Yolanda Becerra, Guillem Alomar, Anna Queralt, Rosa M Badia, Jordi Torres, Toni Cortes, and Jes ´us Labarta. Pycompss: Parallel computational workflows in python. The International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications, 31(1):66–82, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Hunting for open clusters in gaia dr2: 582 new open clusters in the galactic disc

    Alfred Castro-Ginard, Carme Jordi, Xavier Luri, J ´Alvarez Cid- Fuentes, Laia Casamiquela, Friedrich Anders, Tristan Cantat-Gaudin, M Mongui ´o, Lola Balaguer-Nu ˜nez, Salvi Sol `a, et al. Hunting for open clusters in gaia dr2: 582 new open clusters in the galactic disc. Astro...

    2020

  3. [11]

    Re- analysis of public genetic data reveals a rare x-chromosomal variant associated with type 2 diabetes

    S ´ılvia Bon `as-Guarch, Marta Guindo-Mart ´ınez, Irene Miguel-Escalada, Niels Grarup, David Sebastian, Elias Rodriguez-Fos, Friman S ´anchez, Merc`e Planas-F `elix, Paula Cortes-S ´anchez, Santi Gonz ´alez, et al. Re- analysis of public genetic data reveals a rare x-chromosom...

    2018

  4. [12]

    Bioexcel building blocks, a software library for interopera- ble biomolecular simulation workflows

    Pau Andrio, Adam Hospital, Javier Conejero, Luis Jord ´a, Marc Del Pino, Laia Codo, Stian Soiland-Reyes, Carole Goble, Daniele Lezzi, Rosa M Badia, et al. Bioexcel building blocks, a software library for interopera- ble biomolecular simulation workflows. Scientific data, 6(1):...

    2019

  5. [13]

    Daniele Lezzi, Roger Rafanell, Abel Carri ´on, Ignacio Blanquer Espert, Vicente Hern ´andez, and Rosa M. Badia. Enabling e-Science Appli- cations on the Cloud with COMPSs , page 25–34. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Bordeaux, 2012

    2012

  6. [14]

    Managing workflow malleability in urgent computing for earthquake alerts

    Jorge Ejarque, Marisol Monterrubio-Velasco, Cedric Bhihe, Marta Pienkowska, Josep De La Puente, and Rosa M Badia. Managing workflow malleability in urgent computing for earthquake alerts. In SC24-W: Workshops of the International Conference for High Perfor- mance Computing, Ne...

    2024

  7. [15]

    A machine learning estimator trained on synthetic data for real-time earthquake ground-shaking predictions in southern california

    Marisol Monterrubio-Velasco, Scott Callaghan, David Modesto, Jose Carlos Carrasco, Rosa M Badia, Pablo Pallares, Fernando V´azquez- Novoa, Enrique S Quintana-Ort ´ı, Marta Pienkowska, and Josep de la Puente. A machine learning estimator trained on synthetic data for real-time ...

    2024

  8. [16]

    End-to-end workflows for climate science: Integrating hpc simulations, big data processing, and machine learning

    Donatello Elia, Sonia Scardigno, Jorge Ejarque, Alessandro D’Anca, Gabriele Accarino, Enrico Scoccimarro, Davide Donno, Daniele Peano, Francesco Immorlano, and Giovanni Aloisio. End-to-end workflows for climate science: Integrating hpc simulations, big data processing, and mac...

    2023

  9. [17]

    Rosnet: A block tensor algebra library for out-of-core quantum computing simulation

    Sergio Sanchez-Ramirez, Javier Conejero, Francesc Lordan, Anna Quer- alt, Toni Cortes, Rosa M Badia, and Artur Garcia-Saez. Rosnet: A block tensor algebra library for out-of-core quantum computing simulation. In 2021 IEEE/ACM Second International Workshop on Quantum Computing ...

    2021

  10. [18]

    Wood, Jake Lishman, Julien Gacon, Simon Martiel, Paul D

    Ali Javadi-Abhari, Matthew Treinish, Kevin Krsulich, Christopher J. Wood, Jake Lishman, Julien Gacon, Simon Martiel, Paul D. Nation, Lev S. Bishop, Andrew W. Cross, Blake R. Johnson, and Jay M. Gambetta. Quantum computing with Qiskit, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Qibo: a framework for quantum sim- ulation with hardware acceleration

    Stavros Efthymiou, Sergi Ramos-Calderer, Carlos Bravo-Prieto, Adri ´an P´erez-Salinas, Diego Garc ´ıa-Mart´ın, Artur Garcia-Saez, Jos ´e Ignacio Latorre, and Stefano Carrazza. Qibo: a framework for quantum sim- ulation with hardware acceleration. Quantum Science and Technology...

    2021

  12. [20]

    An efficient heuristic procedure for partitioning graphs

    Brian W Kernighan and Shen Lin. An efficient heuristic procedure for partitioning graphs. Bell system technical journal, 49(2):291–307, 1970

    1970

  13. [21]

    Finding and evaluating community structure in networks

    Mark EJ Newman. Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Physical review E , 69(2):026113, 2004

    2004

  14. [22]

    Spectral graph theory , volume 92

    Fan RK Chung. Spectral graph theory , volume 92. American Mathe- matical Society, Providence, 1997

    1997

  15. [23]

    A fast and high quality multilevel scheme for partitioning irregular graphs

    George Karypis and Vipin Kumar. A fast and high quality multilevel scheme for partitioning irregular graphs. SIAM Journal on scientific Computing, 20(1):359–392, 1998

    1998

  16. [24]

    Networkx: Python software for the analysis of complex networks, 2008

    Aric Hagberg, Daniel Schult, and Pieter Swart. Networkx: Python software for the analysis of complex networks, 2008. URL: https: //networkx.github.io/

    2008

  17. [25]

    Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor

    Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fernando GSL Brandao, David A Buell, et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature, 574(7779):505–510, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Harun Bayraktar, Ali Charara, David Clark, Saul Cohen, Timothy Costa, Yao-Lung L. Fang, Yang Gao, Jack Guan, John Gunnels, Azzam Haidar, Andreas Hehn, Markus Hohnerbach, Matthew Jones, Tom Lubowe, Dmitry Lyakh, Shinya Morino, Paul Springer, Sam Stanwyck, Igor Terentyev, Satya ...

    2023

  19. [27]

    Qililab documentation, 2025

    Qilimanjaro Quantum Tech team. Qililab documentation, 2025. Ac- cessed: 2025-04-04

    2025

  20. [28]

    Ibmq processor types

    IBMQ team. Ibmq processor types. https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/ guides/processor-types.html, 2025. Accessed: 2025-04-07

    2025

  21. [29]

    Scalable circuit cutting and scheduling in a resource-constrained and distributed quantum system

    Shuwen Kan, Zefan Du, Miguel Palma, Samuel A Stein, Chenxu Liu, Wenqi Wei, Juntao Chen, Ang Li, and Ying Mao. Scalable circuit cutting and scheduling in a resource-constrained and distributed quantum system. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engine...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Chen, Ethan H

    Daniel T. Chen, Ethan H. Hansen, Xinpeng Li, Aaron Orenstein, Vinooth Kulkarni, Vipin Chaudhary, Qiang Guan, Ji Liu, Yang Zhang, and Shuai Xu. Online Detection of Golden Circuit Cutting Points . In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), ...

    2023

  23. [31]

    Fast quantum circuit cutting with randomized measurements

    Angus Lowe, Matija Medvidovi ´c, Anthony Hayes, Lee J O’Riordan, Thomas R Bromley, Juan Miguel Arrazola, and Nathan Killoran. Fast quantum circuit cutting with randomized measurements. Quantum, 7:934, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Optimal partition- ing of quantum circuits using gate cuts and wire cuts

    Sebastian Brandhofer, Ilia Polian, and Kevin Krsulich. Optimal partition- ing of quantum circuits using gate cuts and wire cuts. IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering , 5:1–10, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Cutting multi-control quantum gates with zx calculus

    Christian Ufrecht, Maniraman Periyasamy, Sebastian Rietsch, Daniel D Scherer, Axel Plinge, and Christopher Mutschler. Cutting multi-control quantum gates with zx calculus. Quantum, 7:1147, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Investigating the effect of circuit cutting in qaoa for the maxcut problem on nisq devices

    Marvin Bechtold, Johanna Barzen, Frank Leymann, Alexander Mandl, Julian Obst, Felix Truger, and Benjamin Weder. Investigating the effect of circuit cutting in qaoa for the maxcut problem on nisq devices. Quantum Science and Technology , 8(4):045022, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Deep variational quantum eigen- solver: a divide-and-conquer method for solving a larger problem with smaller size quantum computers

    Keisuke Fujii, Kaoru Mizuta, Hiroshi Ueda, Kosuke Mitarai, Wataru Mizukami, and Yuya O Nakagawa. Deep variational quantum eigen- solver: a divide-and-conquer method for solving a larger problem with smaller size quantum computers. PRX Quantum, 3(1):010346, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Atlas: Hierarchical partitioning for quantum circuit simulation on gpus

    Mingkuan Xu, Shiyi Cao, Xupeng Miao, Umut A Acar, and Zhihao Jia. Atlas: Hierarchical partitioning for quantum circuit simulation on gpus. In SC24: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis , pages 1–17, Atlanta, 2024. IEEE, IEEE

    2024

  29. [37]

    Bra ´nczyk, Almudena Carrera Vazquez, Daniel J

    Agata M. Bra ´nczyk, Almudena Carrera Vazquez, Daniel J. Egger, Bryce Fuller, Julien Gacon, James R. Garrison, Jennifer R. Glick, Caleb Johnson, Saasha Joshi, Edwin Pednault, C. D. Pemmaraju, Pedro Rivero, Ibrahim Shehzad, and Stefan Woerner. Qiskit addon: circuit cutting. htt...

    2024

  30. [38]

    Cutting circuits with multiple two-qubit unitaries

    Lukas Schmitt, Christophe Piveteau, and David Sutter. Cutting circuits with multiple two-qubit unitaries. Quantum, 9:1634, February 2025

    2025

  31. [2023]

    IEEE Computer Society

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.