pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.17944 · v1 · pith:LW2QQRG2new · submitted 2026-05-18 · 🪐 quant-ph · cs.DC

A System Aware Resource Allocation for Distributed Workflows in Quantum Computing Environments

Abhishek Sawaika , Udaya Parampalli , Rajkumar Buyya This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 11:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cs.DC
keywords quantum resource allocationdistributed quantum workflowsgraph algorithmsNISQ deviceshybrid classical-quantum networksfidelitycommunication overhead
0
0 comments X

The pith

Modified graph algorithms allocate quantum programs across hybrid networks to cut communication overhead by 30 percent on average.

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

The paper proposes a system-aware method that models distributed quantum workflows as graphs and uses modified algorithms to assign program parts to suitable quantum devices. The assignment balances fidelity, execution time, communication overhead, and wait time under the assumption of a hybrid classical-quantum network. A reader would care because current priority-based access to quantum hardware cannot scale to larger applications, and improved allocation would let scarce NISQ devices handle more complex tasks reliably. Empirical tests report average gains of 5 percent in execution time, 30 percent in communication overhead, 40 percent in wait time, and 2 percent in fidelity versus prior methods.

Core claim

By formulating use-cases for distributed quantum workflows and applying modified graph-based algorithms that incorporate multiple cost metrics, the allocation strategy achieves better overall performance on hybrid classical-quantum networks than existing priority-based approaches.

What carries the argument

Modified graph-based algorithms that assign workflow nodes to quantum devices while minimizing a combination of fidelity, execution time, and communication overhead.

If this is right

  • Larger-scale quantum applications become feasible on today's NISQ devices through distributed execution.
  • Overall utilization of available quantum hardware increases when communication costs are explicitly minimized.
  • Wait times for job execution drop substantially when allocation accounts for system-level constraints.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same graph-modeling approach could be tested on workflows whose costs change during execution rather than remaining fixed in advance.
  • If the hybrid-network assumption holds, similar allocation logic might apply to other delicate shared resources such as specialized classical accelerators.

Load-bearing premise

Realistic distributed quantum workflows can be modeled in advance as graphs with known node costs and edge weights, and communication overhead remains the dominant extra cost on a stable hybrid network.

What would settle it

Deploy the proposed allocation on real hybrid quantum-classical hardware with actual workflows and check whether the measured improvements in execution time, communication overhead, wait time, and fidelity match or exceed the reported averages.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.17944 by Abhishek Sawaika, Rajkumar Buyya, Udaya Parampalli.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A sample quantum circuit (GHZ state preparation) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: System Architecture workflow as described in sub section III-A2. The main roles of the service provider (resource manager) include: • A storage to store user requests and computational results. • An allocator module to manage the allocation of user requests to appropriate devices. • A scheduler to send tasks to quantum devices based on a decided schedule and availability. • A controller to manage the netwo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Sample quantum workflows of different sizes, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Process pipeline for experimental simulation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Trends for communication cost by (a) workload size for allocation, (b) number of nodes in the network and (c) distinct [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fidelity trends by (a) workload size for allocation, (b) number of nodes in the network and (c) distinct tasks per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Time distribution of workload per QPU, for different (a) workload size for allocation, (b) number of nodes in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Execution time(seconds) trends by (a) workload size for allocation, (b) number of nodes in the network and (c) distinct [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Trends of wait time(seconds) by (a) workload size for allocation, (b) number of nodes in the network and (c) distinct [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Histogram of unfulfilled tasks over all the experiments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Rapid advancements in cloud based platforms providing access to quantum computing capabilities have opened up several challenges for efficient usage of these highly delicate and costly devices. Although most of the current systems use a priority based access protocol, they are unable to fully support reliable, efficient, and scalable execution of larger-scale applications. To overcome this limitation, we propose a comprehensive solution for efficient allocation of quantum programs to appropriate quantum devices, considering all the relevant cost metrics into account including, fidelity, execution time and communication overhead. We also formulate use-cases for distributed quantum workflow and propose modified graph based algorithms to solve for allocation of such use-cases, assuming a hybrid classical-quantum network. Since hardware advancements in large standalone devices is an ongoing process, it is critical to investigate such distributed workflows to maximize the best utilization of current NISQ devices. Our empirical study shows that the proposed techniques perform better than state-of-the-art methods for almost all evaluation parameters, with average improvements of approximately $5\%$ in execution time, $30\%$ in communication overhead, $40\%$ in wait time and $2\%$ in fidelity, providing better solutions to efficient allocation strategies.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a system-aware resource allocation method for distributed quantum workflows over hybrid classical-quantum networks. Workflows are modeled as graphs with node costs (fidelity, runtime) and edge weights (communication); modified graph algorithms are used to assign tasks to NISQ devices while jointly optimizing the listed metrics. The central empirical claim is that the approach outperforms state-of-the-art methods on modeled instances, yielding average gains of approximately 5% execution time, 30% communication overhead, 40% wait time, and 2% fidelity.

Significance. If the allocation strategies remain effective once node and edge parameters are allowed to vary, the work could improve practical utilization of current NISQ hardware by enabling reliable distributed execution. The graph formulation itself is conventional; any advance would lie in the concrete modifications and in demonstrating robustness rather than in the modeling choice alone.

major comments (2)
  1. [Evaluation] Evaluation section: the reported percentage improvements rest on deterministic graph instances in which node costs and edge weights are treated as fixed known constants. No sensitivity analysis or Monte-Carlo perturbation of these values (to emulate calibration drift, queue variability, or link instability) is described. Because the superiority claim is load-bearing for the allocation recommendation, this omission directly limits the strength of the empirical conclusion.
  2. [Formulation] Problem formulation: the manuscript states that realistic distributed workflows can be modeled with advance knowledge of all costs and weights on a stable hybrid network, yet provides no procedure for obtaining or updating these quantities under realistic NISQ conditions. This modeling assumption underpins every subsequent algorithm and experiment.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract and evaluation paragraphs cite average improvements without error bars, confidence intervals, or the number of independent trials; adding these would strengthen the quantitative claims.
  2. Clarify the precise modifications made to the standard graph algorithms (e.g., which objective is encoded in the edge weights, whether the algorithm is a variant of min-cut or list scheduling). A short pseudocode block or explicit reference to the changed lines would aid reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate the suggestions where feasible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation section: the reported percentage improvements rest on deterministic graph instances in which node costs and edge weights are treated as fixed known constants. No sensitivity analysis or Monte-Carlo perturbation of these values (to emulate calibration drift, queue variability, or link instability) is described. Because the superiority claim is load-bearing for the allocation recommendation, this omission directly limits the strength of the empirical conclusion.

    Authors: We agree that the current evaluation on fixed deterministic instances limits the strength of the claims regarding robustness. In the revised manuscript, we have added a sensitivity analysis subsection to the Evaluation section. This includes Monte-Carlo simulations that perturb node costs and edge weights by up to 10% using Gaussian noise to emulate calibration drift, queue variability, and link instability. The results confirm that the proposed allocation method maintains its relative advantages over baselines, with average improvements degrading by at most 2-3% under perturbation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Formulation] Problem formulation: the manuscript states that realistic distributed workflows can be modeled with advance knowledge of all costs and weights on a stable hybrid network, yet provides no procedure for obtaining or updating these quantities under realistic NISQ conditions. This modeling assumption underpins every subsequent algorithm and experiment.

    Authors: The core contribution of the work is the modified graph-based allocation algorithms under the stated modeling assumptions, which are standard for initial studies of this type. We have expanded the Problem Formulation section in the revision to briefly describe how node costs (fidelity, runtime) and edge weights can be obtained from existing quantum cloud platform APIs, device calibration reports, and historical execution data. A full adaptive updating mechanism for highly unstable conditions is acknowledged as beyond the current scope and noted as future work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical evaluation of graph algorithms on modeled workflows is independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper proposes modified graph-based algorithms for allocating distributed quantum workflows on a hybrid classical-quantum network and reports average improvements from an empirical study. No equations, derivations, or self-citations appear in the abstract or description that reduce any claimed result to a fitted parameter or self-definition by construction. The performance numbers are presented as outcomes of running the proposed techniques on formulated use-cases, which constitutes an external comparison rather than a tautological prediction. The central claim therefore remains self-contained against the stated benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities. The central claim rests on the unstated modeling assumption that workflow costs can be captured by a static graph and that the hybrid network is reliable enough for the overhead metric to be meaningful.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5738 in / 1289 out tokens · 26417 ms · 2026-05-20T11:35:24.903960+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Introduction - Quantum computation and quantum information,

    M. A. Nielson, I. L. Chuang, M. A. Nielsen, and I. L. Chuang, “Introduction - Quantum computation and quantum information,” p. 700, 2010

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Khang,Applications and principles of quantum computing

    A. Khang,Applications and principles of quantum computing. IGI Global, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Commercial applications of quantum computing,

    F. Bova, A. Goldfarb, and R. G. Melko, “Commercial applications of quantum computing,”EPJ Quantum Technology 2021 8:1, vol. 8, pp. 2–, 1 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    The Earth : Natural Resources and Human Interven- tion,

    F. Schmidt-Bleek, “The Earth : Natural Resources and Human Interven- tion,” p. 247, 2011

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Data center energy consumption modeling: A survey,

    M. Dayarathna, Y . Wen, and R. Fan, “Data center energy consumption modeling: A survey,”IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, vol. 18, pp. 732–794, 1 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Is quantum computing green? An estimate for an energy-efficiency quantum advantage,

    D. Jaschke and S. Montangero, “Is quantum computing green? An estimate for an energy-efficiency quantum advantage,”Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 8, p. 025001, 1 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond,

    J. Preskill, “Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond,”Quan- tum, vol. 2, p. 79, 8 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Distributed quantum computing: A survey,

    M. Caleffi, M. Amoretti, D. Ferrari, J. Illiano, A. Manzalini, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, “Distributed quantum computing: A survey,”Computer Networks, vol. 254, p. 110672, 12 2024

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Review of Distributed Quantum Computing: From single QPU to High Performance Quantum Computing,

    D. Barral, F. J. Cardama, G. D ´ıaz-Camacho, D. Fa ´ılde, I. F. Llovo, M. Mussa-Juane, J. V ´azquez-P´erez, J. Villasuso, C. Pi ˜neiro, N. Costas, J. C. Pichel, T. F. Pena, and A. G ´omez, “Review of Distributed Quantum Computing: From single QPU to High Performance Quantum Computing,”Computer Science Review, vol. 57, p. 100747, 8 2025

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Distributed Quantum Computing,

    H. Buhrman and H. R ¨ohrig, “Distributed Quantum Computing,”Lec- ture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 2747, pp. 1–20, 2003

    work page 2003

  11. [11]

    Quantum Divide and Conquer,

    A. Childs, R. Kothari, M. Kovacs-Deak, A. Sundaram, and D. Wang, “Quantum Divide and Conquer,”ACM Transactions on Quantum Com- puting, vol. 6, 4 2025

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    Dis- tributing Quantum Computations, by Shots,

    G. Bisicchia, J. Garc ´ıa-Alonso, J. M. Murillo, and A. Brogi, “Dis- tributing Quantum Computations, by Shots,”Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 14419 LNCS, pp. 363–377, 2023

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    Circuit Knitting With Classical Communica- tion,

    C. Piveteau and D. Sutter, “Circuit Knitting With Classical Communica- tion,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 70, pp. 2734–2745, 4 2024

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    From Distributed Quantum Computing to Quantum Internet Computing: an Overview,

    S. W. Loke, “From Distributed Quantum Computing to Quantum Internet Computing: an Overview,” 8 2022

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Quantum Data Networking for Distributed Quantum Computing: Opportunities and Challenges,

    C. Qiao, Y . Zhao, G. Zhao, and H. Xu, “Quantum Data Networking for Distributed Quantum Computing: Opportunities and Challenges,”INFO- COM WKSHPS 2022 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops, 2022

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    Adaptive job and resource management for the growing quantum cloud,

    G. S. Ravi, K. N. Smith, P. Murali, and F. T. Chong, “Adaptive job and resource management for the growing quantum cloud,”Proceedings - 2021 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering, QCE 2021, pp. 301–312, 2021

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    DRLQ: A Deep Reinforce- ment Learning-based Task Placement for Quantum Cloud Computing,

    H. T. Nguyen, M. Usman, and R. Buyya, “DRLQ: A Deep Reinforce- ment Learning-based Task Placement for Quantum Cloud Computing,” IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing, CLOUD, pp. 475– 481, 2024

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Orchestrating Quantum Cloud Environments with Qonductor,

    E. Giortamis, F. Rom ˜ao, N. Tornow, D. Lugovoy, and P. Bhatotia, “Orchestrating Quantum Cloud Environments with Qonductor,”

    work page

  19. [19]

    Adaptive Job Scheduling in Quantum Clouds Using Reinforcement Learning,

    W. Luo, J. Zhao, C. San Jose, T. Zhan, and Q. Guan, “Adaptive Job Scheduling in Quantum Clouds Using Reinforcement Learning,” Proceedings of ACM Conference (Conference’17), vol. 1, 6 2025

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    CloudQC: A Network-aware Framework for Multi-tenant Distributed Quantum Computing,

    R. Zhou, Y . Gan, Y . Liu, and C. Qian, “CloudQC: A Network-aware Framework for Multi-tenant Distributed Quantum Computing,” 4 2025

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Optimizing Resource Allocation in a Distributed Quantum Computing Cloud: A Game- Theoretic Approach,

    B. O. Sane, M. Hajdu ˇsek, and R. Van Meter, “Optimizing Resource Allocation in a Distributed Quantum Computing Cloud: A Game- Theoretic Approach,” 4 2025

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Resource Management and Circuit Scheduling for Distributed Quantum Computing Interconnect Networks,

    S. Bahrani, R. D. Oliveira, J. M. Parra-Ullauri, R. Wang, and D. Sime- onidou, “Resource Management and Circuit Scheduling for Distributed Quantum Computing Interconnect Networks,”IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS, vol. XX, 9 2024

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Distributed Quantum Computing: Applications and Chal- lenges,

    J. C. Boschero, N. M. Neumann, W. van der Schoot, T. Sijpesteijn, and R. Wezeman, “Distributed Quantum Computing: Applications and Chal- lenges,”Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol. 1423 LNNS, pp. 100–116, 2025

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    Quantum Internet: Networking Challenges in Dis- tributed Quantum Computing,

    A. S. Cacciapuoti, M. Caleffi, F. Tafuri, F. S. Cataliotti, S. Gherardini, and G. Bianchi, “Quantum Internet: Networking Challenges in Dis- tributed Quantum Computing,”IEEE Network, vol. 34, pp. 137–143, 1 2020

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    Classification of Hybrid Quantum-Classical Computing,

    F. Phillipson, N. Neumann, and R. Wezeman, “Classification of Hybrid Quantum-Classical Computing,”Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 14077 LNCS, pp. 18–33, 2023

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Operating system concepts,

    J. L. Peterson and A. Silberschatz, “Operating system concepts,” p. 625, 1985

    work page 1985

  27. [27]

    A Survey and Comparative Study of Hard and Soft Real-Time Dynamic Resource Allocation Strategies for Multi-/Many-Core Systems,

    A. K. Singh, P. Dziurzanski, H. R. Mendis, and L. S. Indrusiak, “A Survey and Comparative Study of Hard and Soft Real-Time Dynamic Resource Allocation Strategies for Multi-/Many-Core Systems,”ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 50, 4 2017

    work page 2017

  28. [28]

    Resource management in large dis- tributed systems,

    A. Goscinski and M. Bearman, “Resource management in large dis- tributed systems,”ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, vol. 24, pp. 7–25, 9 1990

    work page 1990

  29. [29]

    A taxonomy and survey of grid resource management systems for distributed computing,

    K. Krauter, R. Buyya, and M. Maheswaran, “A taxonomy and survey of grid resource management systems for distributed computing,”Software - Practice and Experience, vol. 32, pp. 135–164, 2 2002

    work page 2002

  30. [30]

    Resource allocation for distributed cloud: Concepts and research challenges,

    P. T. Endo, A. V . De Almeida Palhares, N. N. Pereira, G. E. Goncalves, D. Sadok, J. Kelner, B. Melander, and J. E. M˚angs, “Resource allocation for distributed cloud: Concepts and research challenges,”IEEE Network, vol. 25, pp. 42–46, 7 2011

    work page 2011

  31. [31]

    Resource Management in Clouds: Survey and Research Challenges,

    B. Jennings and R. Stadler, “Resource Management in Clouds: Survey and Research Challenges,”Journal of Network and Systems Management 2014 23:3, vol. 23, pp. 567–619, 3 2014

    work page 2014

  32. [32]

    A Survey on Resource Allocation Strategies in Cloud Computing,

    D. Professor, “A Survey on Resource Allocation Strategies in Cloud Computing,”IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, vol. 3, no. 6, 2012

    work page 2012

  33. [33]

    A survey on resource allocation in high performance distributed computing systems,

    H. Hussain, S. U. R. Malik, A. Hameed, S. U. Khan, G. Bickler, N. Min- Allah, M. B. Qureshi, L. Zhang, W. Yongji, N. Ghani, J. Kolodziej, A. Y . Zomaya, C. Z. Xu, P. Balaji, A. Vishnu, F. Pinel, J. E. Pecero, D. Kliazovich, P. Bouvry, H. Li, L. Wang, D. Chen, and A. Rayes, “A survey on resource allocation in high performance distributed computing systems,...

    work page 2013

  34. [34]

    A comparative analysis of resource allocation schemes for real-time services in high-performance computing systems,

    M. S. Qureshi, M. B. Qureshi, M. Fayaz, W. K. Mashwani, S. B. Belhaouari, S. Hassan, and A. Shah, “A comparative analysis of resource allocation schemes for real-time services in high-performance computing systems,”International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, vol. 16, 8 2020

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    Chal- lenges and Opportunities of Near-Term Quantum Computing Systems,

    A. D. Corcoles, A. Kandala, A. Javadi-Abhari, D. T. McClure, A. W. Cross, K. Temme, P. D. Nation, M. Steffen, and J. M. Gambetta, “Chal- lenges and Opportunities of Near-Term Quantum Computing Systems,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 108, pp. 1338–1352, 8 2020

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    C. H. Papadimitriou and K. Steiglitz,Combinatorial optimization: algorithms and complexity. Courier Corporation, 1998

    work page 1998

  37. [37]

    Pilot- Quantum: A Quantum-HPC Middleware for Resource, Workload and Task Management,

    P. Mantha, F. J. Kiwit, N. Saurabh, S. Jha, and A. Luckow, “Pilot- Quantum: A Quantum-HPC Middleware for Resource, Workload and Task Management,” 12 2024

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Benchmarking Quantum Processor Performance at Scale,

    D. C. McKay, I. Hincks, E. J. Pritchett, M. Carroll, L. C. G. Govia, and S. T. Merkel, “Benchmarking Quantum Processor Performance at Scale,” 11 2023

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Characterizing quantum gates via randomized benchmarking,

    E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, and J. Emerson, “Characterizing quantum gates via randomized benchmarking,”Physical Review A, vol. 85, p. 042311, 4 2012

    work page 2012

  40. [40]

    Quality, speed, and scale: three key attributes to measure the performance of near-term quantum computers,

    A. Wack, H. Paik, A. Javadi-Abhari, P. Jurcevic, I. Faro, J. M. Gambetta, and B. R. Johnson, “Quality, speed, and scale: three key attributes to measure the performance of near-term quantum computers,”arxiv.orgA Wack, H Paik, A Javadi-Abhari, P Jurcevic, I Faro, JM Gambetta, BR JohnsonarXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14108, 2021•arxiv.org

    work page arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    Realization of a multinode quantum network of remote solid-state qubits,

    M. Pompili, S. L. Hermans, S. Baier, H. K. Beukers, P. C. Humphreys, R. N. Schouten, R. F. Vermeulen, M. J. Tiggelman, L. dos San- tos Martins, B. Dirkse, S. Wehner, and R. Hanson, “Realization of a multinode quantum network of remote solid-state qubits,”Science, vol. 372, pp. 259–264, 4 2021

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    Concurrent Entanglement Routing for Quantum Networks: Model and Designs,

    S. Shi and C. Qian, “Concurrent Entanglement Routing for Quantum Networks: Model and Designs,”SIGCOMM 2020 - Proceedings of the 2020 Annual Conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication on the Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communication, pp. 62–75, 7 2020

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    Remote-Entanglement Protocols for Stationary Qubits with Photonic Interfaces,

    H. K. Beukers, M. Pasini, H. Choi, D. Englund, R. Hanson, and J. Borregaard, “Remote-Entanglement Protocols for Stationary Qubits with Photonic Interfaces,”PRX Quantum, vol. 5, p. 010202, 3 2024

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Combining quantum processors with real-time classical communication,

    A. Carrera Vazquez, C. Tornow, D. Rist `e, S. Woerner, M. Takita, and D. J. Egger, “Combining quantum processors with real-time classical communication,”Nature, vol. 636, pp. 75–79, 12 2024

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    Some complexity questions related to distributed computing,

    Y . AC-C, “Some complexity questions related to distributed computing,” inProc. 11th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1979, pp. 209–213, 1979

    work page 1979

  46. [46]

    A (sub)graph isomorphism algorithm for matching large graphs,

    L. P. Cordella, P. Foggia, C. Sansone, and M. Vento, “A (sub)graph isomorphism algorithm for matching large graphs,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 26, pp. 1367–1372, 10 2004

    work page 2004

  47. [47]

    The Index-Based Subgraph Matching Algorithm with General Symmetries (ISMAGS): Exploiting Symmetry for Faster Sub- graph Enumeration,

    M. Houbraken, S. Demeyer, T. Michoel, P. Audenaert, D. Colle, and M. Pickavet, “The Index-Based Subgraph Matching Algorithm with General Symmetries (ISMAGS): Exploiting Symmetry for Faster Sub- graph Enumeration,”PLOS ONE, vol. 9, p. e97896, 5 2014

    work page 2014

  48. [48]

    QSimPy: A learning- centric simulation framework for quantum cloud resource management,

    H. T. Nguyen, M. Usman, and R. Buyya, “QSimPy: A learning- centric simulation framework for quantum cloud resource management,” Quantum Computing, pp. 165–183, 1 2025

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    IBM Callibration Data,

    “IBM Callibration Data,” 2025. Available at https://quantum.cloud.ibm. com/docs/en/guides/qpu-information#calibration-data

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    MQT Bench: Bench- marking software and design automation tools for quantum computing,

    N. Quetschlich, L. Burgholzer, and R. Wille, “MQT Bench: Bench- marking software and design automation tools for quantum computing,” Quantum, 2023. MQT Bench is available at https://www.cda.cit.tum.de/ mqtbench/

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    Quantum simulation,

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, “Quantum simulation,”Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 86, p. 153, 3 2014

    work page 2014