Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 45 references

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

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 CloudQC is the first framework for placing and network-scheduling multiple concurrent distributed quantum circuits across a multi-tenant quantum cloud, and its simulations show significant job completion time reductions.

desk verdict First framing of multi-tenant DQC placement and scheduling, with a real evaluation gap: the headline JCT claim is not tested against prior DQC placement algorithms. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20389 v1 pith:P7R6Z7BY submitted 2025-04-29 cs.DC quant-ph

Ruilin Zhou , Yuhang Gan , Yi Liu , Chen Qian This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DCquant-ph
keywords distributedquantumcomputingcloudcircuitplacementnetworkschedulingEPRpairsmulti-tenantjobcompletiontimeremotegateDAG
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

CloudQC is the first framework that tackles both placement and network scheduling for multiple distributed quantum computing (DQC) circuits running concurrently in a shared quantum cloud. It argues that prior DQC placement methods handle only a single circuit and ignore the probabilistic nature of EPR-pair generation, so they cannot work in a multi-tenant setting. CloudQC combines graph-partition-based circuit placement, community detection to choose QPU groups, and a network scheduler that gives extra communication qubits to remote gates that lie on longer critical paths. Simulations with real quantum circuit workloads show that CloudQC reduces average job completion time compared to existing DQC placement algorithms for both single-circuit and multi-circuit DQC.

What carries the argument

The remote-gate DAG (directed acyclic graph) of each placed circuit, where nodes are inter-QPU two-qubit gates and edges are their logical dependencies, carries the network scheduler's argument. Each gate receives a priority equal to the length of the longest path from it to a leaf node; the scheduler then allocates more communication qubits (hence more EPR generation attempts) to higher-priority gates, because failure of those gates would backlog more of the circuit. The placement component uses a modularity-based community detection algorithm to select QPU groups with strong connectivity and sufficient computing qubits, and a scoring function over estimated running time and communication cost to pick the final placement.

What would settle it

A testbed or hardware-accurate simulation that measures remote-gate latency as a function of the number of communication qubits allocated to EPR generation attempts. If expected latency is nearly flat beyond one or two attempts, or if EPR attempts on different qubits interfere, then CloudQC's priority-based allocation would produce no job-completion-time benefit, and its reported reductions would vanish.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that placing multiple quantum circuits in a shared QPU cluster requires joint optimization of circuit placement and network resource allocation, and that a scheduler exploiting the remote-gate DAG's structure can significantly cut job completion time. The central discovery is a concrete framework: partition each circuit, map partitions to QPUs using community detection and a center-based heuristic, then allocate communication qubits per remote gate in proportion to the gate's priority, defined as the longest path length from that gate to a leaf in the remote DAG. The paper reports that this priority-based redundant allocation outperforms greedy, average, and random allocation strategies on real circuit workloads, and that the placement step alone reduces communication overhead relative to simulated annealing, genetic algorithm, and BFS-based placement.

Load-bearing premise

The whole network-scheduling gain rests on an unstated model in which allocating more communication qubits to a remote gate meaningfully reduces its expected duration through redundant EPR generation attempts; the paper never defines the functions $d_u(x_u)$ and $p_u(x_u)$ that encode this effect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If CloudQC holds, future quantum cloud platforms should treat circuit placement and network scheduling as one joint problem, not separate concerns.
  • Remote gates on long DAG paths are the right targets for redundant communication resources, so DQC compilers should compute path-length priorities before allocating EPR pairs.
  • The placement method's community-detection step gives a practical way to keep highly interacting partitions on nearby QPUs while preserving resources for future jobs.
  • Multi-tenant quantum clouds can improve throughput without changing underlying hardware, by scheduling existing EPR resources more intelligently.
  • The results suggest that improving EPR success probability itself is a key hardware lever, since all schedulers' completion times drop as that probability rises.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The priority metric (longest path to a leaf) is a crude critical-path proxy; a scheduler that weights paths by EPR success probability and gate execution times would likely do even better, but the paper does not test this.
  • The framework assumes a fixed topology and homogeneous QPU capabilities; extending it to heterogeneous QPUs with different error rates or link reliabilities is a natural next step that the placement score could encode via edge weights.
  • The unstated latency model is the main risk: if redundant EPR attempts do not reduce expected remote-gate duration on real hardware, the framework's scheduler advantage could shrink, while its placement component may still stand.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces CloudQC, a framework for multi-tenant distributed quantum computing (DQC) that combines circuit placement and quantum network scheduling. The placement component partitions quantum circuits, selects QPUs via modularity-based community detection, and maps partitions using a graph-center heuristic; the network scheduler allocates communication qubits to remote operations based on a critical-path-inspired priority. The authors claim that CloudQC is the first framework to address placement and network scheduling for multiple concurrent DQC circuits, and that simulations with real quantum circuit workloads show it significantly reduces job completion time compared to existing DQC placement algorithms for both single-circuit and multi-circuit DQC. A public simulator is provided. The paper includes an NP-hardness argument for the placement problem and evaluations of placement cost, network scheduling, and multi-tenant scenarios.

Significance. If the central claim is substantiated, the paper addresses a genuine gap: prior DQC placement work focuses on single circuits, and classical cloud placement techniques do not account for the probabilistic nature of quantum communication. The public simulator, use of QASMBench workloads, and incorporation of EPR success probabilities are concrete strengths that support reproducibility and further research. The network scheduler's redundancy idea is interesting and potentially useful. However, the evidence presented does not yet establish the headline claim that job completion time is significantly reduced compared to existing DQC placement algorithms, because the reported experiments do not directly compare end-to-end placement-and-scheduling performance against prior placement methods. The contribution is a plausible stepping stone, but the evaluation needs to be strengthened before the claim is supportable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section VI] The central claim, stated in the abstract and conclusion, is that CloudQC 'significantly reduces the average job completion time compared to existing DQC placement algorithms for both single-circuit and multi-circuit DQC.' This claim is not directly tested by the reported experiments. Table III in Section VI-B evaluates placement only by the number of remote operations (communication cost), not by job completion time, against SA, GA, and Random. Section VI-C (Fig. 22 and related figures) compares CloudQC with Greedy, Average, and Random resource allocation while holding the placement fixed, which isolates the network scheduler rather than the full placement-plus-scheduling pipeline. Section VI-D compares only CloudQC-BFS and CloudQC-FIFO, both ablations of the proposed framework, against CloudQC in multi-tenant settings; no prior DQC placement algorithm is included. Consequently, the end-to-end JCT comparison against existing DQC placement algorithms is missing. This is a load-bearing evidence gap that can be addressed by running the public simulator with SA, GA, and Random as full end-to-end baselines and reporting JCT for both single-circuit and multi-circuit workloads.
  2. [Section IV-C, Eq. (10), Algorithm 3] The network scheduling benefit rests on an unspecified model of how allocating more communication qubits x_u reduces the expected duration of a remote operation. Eq. (10) defines completion time as c_u = s_u + d_u(x_u), and the text refers to success probability p_u(x_u), but neither d_u(x_u) nor p_u(x_u) is ever defined. Algorithm 3 contains steps such as 'Identify competing sets for resource allocation,' 'Allocate resources between competing sets,' and 'Determine resources allocation based on the priority of node' without specifying the actual allocation rules. Without these definitions, the network scheduling results cannot be reproduced or transferred to hardware, and the reported JCT reductions may be an artifact of an assumed (and unstated) model of how redundancy improves remote-gate latency. The authors should state the functional forms of d_u(x_u) and p_u(x_u), or provide the scheduling equations that Algorithm 3 implements.
  3. [Section V-B, scoring function and Eq. (11)] The placement scoring function S = α × (1/T) + β × (1/C) and the batch manager metric I_i = λ1·(#CNOTs/n_i) + λ2·n_i + λ3·d_i both contain weights (α, β, λ1, λ2, λ3) that are never specified in the paper. No sensitivity analysis is reported. Since these weights directly influence which placement and job order are chosen, the reported improvements could depend on a particular choice of weights. The authors should report the values used in the experiments and show that the conclusions are robust across a reasonable range of weight settings.
  4. [Section VI, all subsections] The performance comparisons lack error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests. Section VI-D states that each batch is run 20 times with different network topologies, but only CDF curves are shown without any uncertainty quantification. The text repeatedly uses 'significantly' (e.g., 'CloudQC significantly achieves the least job completion time' in Section VI-C.1) without supporting statistical analysis. At minimum, the authors should report the variance across random topologies and EPR-generation trials and, where appropriate, perform paired significance tests against the baselines.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-C and V-C] There are several typos and naming inconsistencies: 'CloudDC' appears twice in Section V-C instead of 'CloudQC'; Section VI-C contains 'flowing scheduling' instead of 'flow scheduling'; the section heading VI-D uses 'Multi-Tennant' instead of 'Multi-Tenant'; and Section IV-C has the fragment 'we With this example'. The example about gate importance refers to 'the first gate' and then 'the ninth gate' in an unclear way; the text should consistently identify the gates being compared.
  2. [Table III] The column header 'CdQC-BFS' appears to be a typo for 'CloudQC-BFS'. Additionally, the caption says 'NUMBER OF REMOTE OPERATIONS OF SINGLE-CIRCUIT PLACEMENT' but the abstract and text emphasize job completion time; the table should clarify that this metric is communication cost only, not JCT.
  3. [Section IV-B] The NP-hardness argument for the multi-tenant problem is sketched with 'Due to the page limitation, we omit the details here.' Since NP-hardness of the multi-tenant placement is claimed as a contribution, the reduction should be given in an appendix or stated more carefully; otherwise, the claim remains unsupported.
  4. [Figure 22] The y-axis is labeled 'Relative Job Completion Time' but the text does not state what the values are relative to. The caption should specify the normalization baseline (presumably CloudQC's completion time is set to 1, or the minimum across methods).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported gains are not equivalent to the paper's inputs by construction, although the headline JCT claim is under-supported by the experiments actually run.

full rationale

CloudQC's derivation chain contains no step where a predicted quantity is definitionally equal to an input or where a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The placement objective in Eq. (1) minimizes communication cost and Table III reports remote-operation counts under that objective; the network scheduler in Algorithm 3 and Eq. (10) allocates EPR generation attempts according to DAG priority, and the simulator evaluates job completion time under the same model. The abstract's claim of reduced job completion time versus existing DQC placement algorithms is not directly tested, because Table III compares communication cost while the JCT results in Fig. 22 compare only scheduler variants or ablations, but that is an evidence gap rather than circularity. The undefined d_u(x_u) and p_u(x_u) in Eq. (10) are an unstated modeling assumption about how redundant communication qubits reduce expected remote-gate duration, not an equivalence between output and input. The only self-citation, reference [37] for the 0.3 EPR success probability, is not load-bearing because that parameter is held fixed across all compared methods and does not by itself determine the reported ordering.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The simulations depend on an assumed latency table, a constant EPR success probability, and an unstated resource-to-latency relationship for remote gates. The weights in the scoring and batch-order metrics are free parameters with no reported values or sensitivity analysis. These are the main assumptions the central claim rests on.

free parameters (4)
  • Placement scoring weights α and β = Not specified in the paper
    Used in S = α * 1/T + β * 1/C to rank candidate placements (Section V-B). No sensitivity analysis or stated default values.
  • Batch manager weights λ1, λ2, λ3 = Not specified in the paper
    Used in I_i = λ1 * #CNOTs/n_i + λ2 * n_i + λ3 * d_i to order circuit processing (Section V-B). No default values or tuning procedure are given.
  • Imbalance factor list α = {α1, α2, ..., αn} = Not specified in the paper
    Controls the variety of graph partitions considered in Algorithm 1 (line 6). The list's length and values determine the search space but are not reported.
  • Remote-operations threshold ε in constraint (6) = Not specified in the paper
    This threshold appears in the formal placement formulation (Section IV-B, Eq. 6) but is never referenced in the algorithm design or evaluation, so its value or role is unclear.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The quantum cloud has a fixed network topology, and EPR generation succeeds with constant probability 0.3 regardless of distance or link quality.
    Used in the simulator (Section VI-A) and consistent with prior experimental values [16], [37], but the distance-independence is a simplification.
  • domain assumption The relative latency model in Table I, with EPR preparation around 10 CX and measurement around 5 CX, approximates real hardware.
    Based on IBM platform measurements and recent experiments, but the simulator treats these as fixed constants without noise.
  • ad hoc to paper The expected duration of a remote gate d_u(x_u) decreases as more communication qubits x_u are allocated, but the functional form is never specified.
    This assumption is needed for the network scheduler's resource allocation to have any effect. It is invoked in Section IV-C (Eq. 10) but never defined or validated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CloudQC: A Network-aware Framework for Multi-tenant Distributed Quantum Computing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P7R6Z7BY

@misc{pith2026250420389,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CloudQC: A Network-aware Framework for Multi-tenant Distributed Quantum Computing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P7R6Z7BY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20389}
}
read the original abstract

Distributed quantum computing (DQC) that allows a large quantum circuit to be executed simultaneously on multiple quantum processing units (QPUs) becomes a promising approach to increase the scalability of quantum computing. It is natural to envision the near-future DQC platform as a multi-tenant cluster of QPUs, called a Quantum Cloud. However, no existing DQC work has addressed the two key problems of running DQC in a multi-tenant quantum cloud: placing multiple quantum circuits to QPUs and scheduling network resources to complete these jobs. This work is the first attempt to design a circuit placement and resource scheduling framework for a multi-tenant environment. The proposed framework is called CloudQC, which includes two main functional components, circuit placement and network scheduler, with the objectives of optimizing both quantum network cost and quantum computing time. Experimental results with real quantum circuit workloads show that CloudQC significantly reduces the average job completion time compared to existing DQC placement algorithms for both single-circuit and multi-circuit DQC. We envision this work will motivate more future work on network-aware quantum cloud.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20389 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Quantum circuit of a 4-qubit VQE algorithm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Quantum Cloud Operation Latency Single-qubit gates t1q ∼ 0.1 CX CX and CZ gates t2q = 1 CX Measure tms ∼ 5 CX EPR preparation tiep ∼ 10 CX TABLE I SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS AND LATENCY all currently placed circuits to complete their execution. It also monitors the status of each QPU, such as the available computing and communication qubits. Quantum links and network topology. In our model, a quantum link is a channel fo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) An example circuit spams three QPUs. (b)Corresponding remote DAG that only contains inter-QPU remote gates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of a quantum cloud with three DQC jobs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of our scheduler workflow Inequation 8 denotes that, for each QPU i, the total allocated resources at any time do not exceed the available communica￾tion qubits on each machine i. Here, Ni is the set of operations involving machine i. Inequation 9 ensures that…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Overhead vs # of computing qubits: qugan n111 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 # of computing qubits per QPU 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 Communication Overhead Random CloudQC-BFS GA Annealing CloudQC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Job Completion Time vs # of communication qubits: qugan n111 5 6 7 8 9 10 # of Communication Qubits 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Mean Job Completion Time Greedy Average Random CloudQC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Job Completion Time CDF with QFT Workloads 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Completion Time 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Completion Time CDF CloudQC CloudQC-BFS CloudQC-FIFO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_15.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Job Completion Time vs EPR probability: qugan n111 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 EPR Probability 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 Mean Job Completion Time Greedy Average Random CloudQC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_18.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Network Scheduling with Different Methods with Default Setting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_22.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,

    L. K. Grover, “A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,” in Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing , 1996, pp. 212–219

    1996

  2. [2]

    Simulating physics with computers,

    R. P. Feynman et al., “Simulating physics with computers,” Int. j. Theor. phys, vol. 21, no. 6/7, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Quantum computer systems: Research for noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers,

    Y . Ding and F. T. Chong, “Quantum computer systems: Research for noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers,” 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Building a practical quantum computer,

    D. Monroe, “Building a practical quantum computer,” Communications of the ACM , vol. 65, no. 7, pp. 15–17, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Trapped- ion quantum computing: progress and challenges,

    C. D. Bruzewicz, J. Chiaverini, R. McConnell, and J. M. Sage, “Trapped- ion quantum computing: progress and challenges,” Appl. Phys. Rev. , 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Device challenges for near term superconducting quantum processors: frequency collisions,

    M. Brink, J. M. Chow, J. Hertzberg, E. Magesan, and S. Rosenblatt, “Device challenges for near term superconducting quantum processors: frequency collisions,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM) , 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Autocomm: A framework for enabling efficient communication in distributed quan- tum programs,

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

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Large-scale modular quantum-computer architecture with atomic memory and photonic interconnects,

    C. Monroe, R. Raussendorf, A. Ruthven, K. R. Brown, P. Maunz, L.-M. Duan, and J. Kim, “Large-scale modular quantum-computer architecture with atomic memory and photonic interconnects,” Physical Review A , vol. 89, no. 2, p. 022317, 2014

    2014

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Qucomm: Optimizing collective com- munication for distributed quantum computing,

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

    2023

  2. [10]

    Optimized Compiler for Distributed Quantum Computing,

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

    2023

  3. [11]

    Qubit allocation for distributed quantum computing,

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

    2023

  4. [12]

    Qubit teleportation between non-neighbouring nodes in a quantum network,

    S. Hermans, M. Pompili, H. Beukers, S. Baier, J. Borregaard, and R. Hanson, “Qubit teleportation between non-neighbouring nodes in a quantum network,” Nature, vol. 605, no. 7911, pp. 663–668, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Low-loss interconnects for modular supercon- ducting quantum processors,

    J. Niu, L. Zhang, Y . Liu, J. Qiu, W. Huang, J. Huang, H. Jia, J. Liu, Z. Tao, W. Wei et al. , “Low-loss interconnects for modular supercon- ducting quantum processors,” Nature Electronics, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 235– 241, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Microwave quantum link be- tween superconducting circuits housed in spatially separated cryogenic systems,

    P. Magnard, S. Storz, P. Kurpiers, J. Sch¨ar, F. Marxer, J. L¨utolf, T. Walter, J.-C. Besse, M. Gabureac, K. Reuer et al., “Microwave quantum link be- tween superconducting circuits housed in spatially separated cryogenic systems,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 125, no. 26, p...

    2020

  7. [15]

    High-rate and high-fidelity modular inter- connects between neutral atom quantum processors,

    Y . Li and J. Thompson, “High-rate and high-fidelity modular inter- connects between neutral atom quantum processors,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04075, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    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 Santos Mar- tins, B. Dirkse et al., “Realization of a multinode quantum network of remote solid-state qubits,” Science, vol. 372, no. 6539, pp. 259–264, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Quantum computing in the cloud: Analyzing job and machine characteristics,

    G. S. Ravi, K. N. Smith, P. Gokhale, and F. T. Chong, “Quantum computing in the cloud: Analyzing job and machine characteristics,” in Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Workload Charac- terization (IISWC), 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Qucloud: A new qubit mapping mechanism for multi-programming quantum computing in cloud environment,

    L. Liu and X. Dou, “Qucloud: A new qubit mapping mechanism for multi-programming quantum computing in cloud environment,” in 2021 IEEE International symposium on high-performance computer architecture (HPCA). IEEE, 2021, pp. 167–178

    2021

  11. [19]

    Utility-scale quantum computing on ibm cloud,

    “Utility-scale quantum computing on ibm cloud,”

  12. [20]

    Azure quantum cloud service: Get innovative quantum hardware, software, and solutions in a single cloud service

    “Azure quantum cloud service: Get innovative quantum hardware, software, and solutions in a single cloud service.” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/quantum

    2024

  13. [21]

    Nvidia launches cloud quantum-computer simulation microser- vices

    “Nvidia launches cloud quantum-computer simulation microser- vices.” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/ nvidia-launches-cloud-quantum-computer-simulation-microservices

    2024

  14. [22]

    A case for multi- programming quantum computers,

    P. Das, S. S. Tannu, P. J. Nair, and M. Qureshi, “A case for multi- programming quantum computers,” in Proceedings of the 52nd Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture , 2019, pp. 291–303

    2019

  15. [23]

    Enabling multi-programming mechanism for quantum computing in the nisq era,

    S. Niu and A. Todri-Sanial, “Enabling multi-programming mechanism for quantum computing in the nisq era,” Quantum, vol. 7, p. 925, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Distributing circuits over hetero- geneous, modular quantum computing network architectures,

    P. Andres-Martinez, T. Forrer, D. Mills, J.-Y . Wu, L. Henaut, K. Ya- mamoto, M. Murao, and R. Duncan, “Distributing circuits over hetero- geneous, modular quantum computing network architectures,” Jul. 2023, arXiv:2305.14148 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Improving the scalability of data center networks with traffic-aware virtual machine placement,

    X. Meng, V . Pappas, and L. Zhang, “Improving the scalability of data center networks with traffic-aware virtual machine placement,” in Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM , 2010

    2010

  18. [26]

    Towards predictable datacenter networks,

    H. Ballani, P. Costa, T. Karagiannis, and A. Rowstron, “Towards predictable datacenter networks,” in Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM , 2011

    2011

  19. [27]

    An overview of virtual machine placement schemes in cloud computing,

    M. Masdari, S. S. Nabavi, and V . Ahmadi, “An overview of virtual machine placement schemes in cloud computing,” Journal of Network and Computer Applications , 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    Van Meter, Quantum networking

    R. Van Meter, Quantum networking. John Wiley & Sons, 2014

    2014

  21. [29]

    https://github.com/embersax/CloudQC

  22. [30]

    Quantum computation and quantum information,

    M. A. Nielsen and I. Chuang, “Quantum computation and quantum information,” 2002

    2002

  23. [31]

    A survey for the quadratic assignment problem,

    E. M. Loiola, N. M. M. De Abreu, P. O. Boaventura-Netto, P. Hahn, and T. Querido, “A survey for the quadratic assignment problem,” European journal of operational research , vol. 176, no. 2, pp. 657–690, 2007

    2007

  24. [32]

    P-complete approximation problems,

    S. Sahni and T. Gonzalez, “P-complete approximation problems,” Jour- nal of the ACM (JACM) , vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 555–565, 1976

    1976

  25. [33]

    Modularity and community structure in networks,

    M. E. Newman, “Modularity and community structure in networks,” Proceedings of the national academy of sciences , vol. 103, no. 23, pp. 8577–8582, 2006

    2006

  26. [34]

    Metis: A software package for partitioning unstructured graphs, partitioning meshes, and computing fill-reducing orderings of sparse matrices,

    G. Karypis and V . Kumar, “Metis: A software package for partitioning unstructured graphs, partitioning meshes, and computing fill-reducing orderings of sparse matrices,” 1997

    1997

  27. [35]

    Qasmbench: A low- level quantum benchmark suite for nisq evaluation and simulation,

    A. Li, S. Stein, S. Krishnamoorthy, and J. Ang, “Qasmbench: A low- level quantum benchmark suite for nisq evaluation and simulation,”ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing , vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1–26, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    t— ket¿: a retargetable compiler for nisq devices,

    S. Sivarajah, S. Dilkes, A. Cowtan, W. Simmons, A. Edgington, and R. Duncan, “t— ket¿: a retargetable compiler for nisq devices,”Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 014003, 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Concurrent entanglement routing for quantum networks: Model and designs,

    S. Shi and C. Qian, “Concurrent entanglement routing for quantum networks: Model and designs,” in SIGCOMM, 2020, pp. 62–75

    2020

  30. [38]

    Genetic algorithms,

    J. H. Holland, “Genetic algorithms,” Scientific american, vol. 267, no. 1, pp. 66–73, 1992

    1992

  31. [39]

    Time-sliced quantum circuit partitioning for modular architectures,

    J. M. Baker, C. Duckering, A. Hoover, and F. T. Chong, “Time-sliced quantum circuit partitioning for modular architectures,” in Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers , 2020, pp. 98–107

    2020

  32. [40]

    Automated distribution of quantum circuits via hypergraph partitioning,

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

    2019

  33. [41]

    Distributed quantum com- puting and network control for acc elerated vqe,

    S. DiAdamo, M. Ghibaudi, and J. Cruise, “Distributed quantum com- puting and network control for acc elerated vqe,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.02504, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Time-sliced quantum circuit partitioning for modular architectures,

    J. M. Baker, C. Duckering, A. Hoover, and F. T. Chong, “Time-sliced quantum circuit partitioning for modular architectures,” in Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers . Catania Sicily Italy: ACM, May 2020, pp. 98–107

    2020

  35. [43]

    Data centers with quantum random access memory and quantum networks,

    J. Liu, C. T. Hann, and L. Jiang, “Data centers with quantum random access memory and quantum networks,” Physical Review A , vol. 108, no. 3, p. 032610, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Quantum computing in the cloud: Analyzing job and machine characteristics,

    G. S. Ravi, K. N. Smith, P. Gokhale, and F. T. Chong, “Quantum computing in the cloud: Analyzing job and machine characteristics,” in 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Workload Characterization (IISWC). IEEE, 2021, pp. 39–50. 11

    2021

  37. [2024]

    Available: https://ibm.com/blog/announcement/ new-ibm-quantum-systems-on-the-ibm-cloud/

    [Online]. Available: https://ibm.com/blog/announcement/ new-ibm-quantum-systems-on-the-ibm-cloud/

Pith tools

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