pith. sign in

arxiv: 2505.08928 · v1 · submitted 2025-05-13 · 🪐 quant-ph

TeleSABRE: Layout Synthesis in Multi-Core Quantum Systems with Teleport Interconnect

Enrico Russo , Elio Vinciguerra , Maurizio Palesi , Davide Patti , Giuseppe Ascia , Vincenzo Catania This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 15:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum circuit compilationlayout synthesismulti-core quantum architecturesteleportation interconnectSABRE heuristicqubit routing
0
0 comments X

The pith

TeleSABRE extends SABRE to mix intra-core SWAPs with teleportation across cores, cutting inter-core operations by 28 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 develops TeleSABRE, an extension of the existing SABRE heuristic for mapping quantum circuits onto multi-core processors whose cores are linked only by teleportation. It shows that jointly choosing when to move qubits by SWAP inside a core and when to use teleportation between cores reduces the total number of expensive inter-core actions while still respecting the extra steps that teleportation protocols require. A sympathetic reader would care because modular quantum hardware will soon need exactly this kind of compiler-level optimization to keep communication costs from dominating run time. The central result is an empirical 28 percent drop in inter-core operations across standard benchmarks once the logistics of teleportation are folded into the cost model.

Core claim

TeleSABRE augments the SABRE search by allowing both local SWAPs and teleportation-based qubit relocation between cores; the heuristic now evaluates candidate layouts that trade off the cost of preparing and executing teleportation protocols against the cost of additional intra-core SWAPs needed to bring qubits into position for those protocols. When evaluated on a range of quantum circuits, this joint optimization yields a 28 percent reduction in inter-core operations relative to plain SABRE while still producing valid executable schedules.

What carries the argument

TeleSABRE heuristic, which extends SABRE's lookahead search by adding teleportation moves (both qubit teleportation and gate teleportation) as first-class relocation primitives whose preparation overhead is included in the routing cost.

If this is right

  • Fewer inter-core communications lower the total execution time on teleport-linked modular processors.
  • The same heuristic also trims the number of intra-core SWAPs that would otherwise be needed solely to enable teleportation.
  • Circuits that previously required many long-range interactions become more practical on hardware with limited teleport bandwidth.
  • Layout synthesis can now be performed once per architecture rather than requiring separate manual tuning for each teleport protocol variant.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same cost-modeling approach could be applied to other interconnect primitives such as photonic links or shuttling, provided their overheads are known.
  • If teleport success probabilities turn out to vary with circuit depth or qubit state, the heuristic would need an online calibration loop to remain accurate.
  • Scaling TeleSABRE to processors with dozens of cores would require extending the lookahead window or adding hierarchical routing layers.

Load-bearing premise

The costs and success probabilities of the teleportation protocols are fixed and known ahead of time so they can be inserted into the heuristic without creating new dominant error sources.

What would settle it

Execute the same benchmark circuits on a concrete multi-core architecture once with standard SABRE and once with TeleSABRE, then count the actual number of inter-core teleportations required by each schedule; a result showing no reduction or an increase would falsify the claimed benefit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08928 by Davide Patti, Elio Vinciguerra, Enrico Russo, Giuseppe Ascia, Maurizio Palesi, Vincenzo Catania.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example multi-core superconducting quantum com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Compiled circuit diagram with additional SWAPs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Monolithic and multi-core architecture physical qubits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Quantum teleportation protocol realizing telegate prim [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example multi-core quantum layout synthesis scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Contracted graph generation and remote gate energy calculation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Architectures considered in experiments is proportional to the number of cores, C. Since Dijkstra’s algorithm runs in O(V log V + E) time for a graph with V nodes and E edges (using a priority queue implemen￾tation), and the number of communication qubits is O(C), the additional computational overhead for inter-core routing is O(C log C). In the worst-case scenario, where every two-qubit gate requires inte… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Inter-core operation count comparison against Hungar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Operations introduced by layout synthesis compared [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Example deadlock scenario. operations, up to 51% in terms of additional intra-core swap operations and up to 35% in terms of circuit depth. VI. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE WORK The proposed approach provides a heuristic baseline for holistic quantum compilation in multi-core architectures with teleport interconnects. In this section, we describe limitations that could be addressed in future work. A first limit… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum circuit compilation and, in particular, efficient qubit layout synthesis is a critical challenge in modular, multi-core quantum architectures with constrained interconnects. In this work, we extend the SABRE heuristic algorithm to develop TeleSABRE, a layout synthesis approach tailored for architectures featuring teleportation-based interconnects. Unlike standard SABRE, which only introduces SWAP operations for qubit movement, TeleSABRE integrates both intracore SWAPs and teleportation-based techniques leveraging qubit teleportation and gate teleportation across cores. This enables more efficient circuit execution by reducing both inter-core communication overhead and the number of intra-core SWAPs required to allow teleportation protocols and local gate executions. Experimental results demonstrate that TeleSABRE achieves 28% reduction across various benchmarks in terms of inter-core operations while also taking into account the logistics of the teleport protocols.

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 extends the SABRE heuristic to TeleSABRE for layout synthesis on multi-core quantum architectures that use teleportation-based interconnects. TeleSABRE augments standard intra-core SWAP insertion with qubit teleportation and gate teleportation primitives, folding their logistics (latencies and success probabilities) into the cost function to jointly minimize inter-core operations and the SWAPs needed to enable them. The central empirical claim is a 28% reduction in inter-core operations relative to baseline SABRE across an unspecified set of circuit benchmarks.

Significance. If the 28% reduction is shown to be robust and to correspond to net gains in executable fidelity or runtime once device-specific teleport calibration and error channels are included, the work would provide a practical compilation tool for modular quantum processors. The explicit incorporation of teleport logistics into the search heuristic is a clear technical contribution over prior SWAP-only methods; however, the absence of benchmark lists, baseline details, error bars, or statistical tests in the reported results limits the immediate impact.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Experimental Results] Abstract and Experimental Results section: the central claim of a 28% reduction in inter-core operations supplies no list of benchmark circuits, no description of the baseline SABRE configuration, no error bars, and no statistical tests. Without these, it is impossible to determine whether the reported improvement is robust or sensitive to post-hoc choices of weighting between SWAP and teleport costs.
  2. [Method] Method section (cost-function definition): the extended heuristic treats teleport success probabilities and latencies as fixed, architecture-independent inputs. If these parameters require device-specific calibration or if unmodeled error channels from teleportation dominate the reported savings, the measured reduction in inter-core operations will not translate to net improvement in circuit fidelity or runtime; the manuscript provides no sensitivity analysis or device-model validation for this modeling choice.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Method] Notation for qubit and gate teleportation primitives is introduced without an explicit table comparing their resource costs to intra-core SWAPs; adding such a table would improve readability.
  2. [Experimental Results] Figure captions for the experimental plots do not state the number of random seeds or the exact hyper-parameter settings used for TeleSABRE versus baseline SABRE.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address each major point below and indicate where revisions will be made to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Experimental Results] Abstract and Experimental Results section: the central claim of a 28% reduction in inter-core operations supplies no list of benchmark circuits, no description of the baseline SABRE configuration, no error bars, and no statistical tests. Without these, it is impossible to determine whether the reported improvement is robust or sensitive to post-hoc choices of weighting between SWAP and teleport costs.

    Authors: We agree that the experimental presentation would benefit from greater detail. In the revised manuscript we will add the complete list of benchmark circuits, specify the exact SABRE baseline configuration and cost-weighting parameters used, report error bars derived from repeated runs of the heuristic, and include a brief discussion of result consistency across the benchmark set. These changes will allow readers to assess robustness directly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Method] Method section (cost-function definition): the extended heuristic treats teleport success probabilities and latencies as fixed, architecture-independent inputs. If these parameters require device-specific calibration or if unmodeled error channels from teleportation dominate the reported savings, the measured reduction in inter-core operations will not translate to net improvement in circuit fidelity or runtime; the manuscript provides no sensitivity analysis or device-model validation for this modeling choice.

    Authors: The cost function is intentionally parameterized so that success probabilities and latencies can be supplied as device-specific inputs. We acknowledge the absence of sensitivity analysis and will add a dedicated subsection that varies these parameters over plausible ranges and reports the resulting change in inter-core operation counts. Full device-model validation with calibrated error channels lies outside the scope of the present compilation study; we will add an explicit limitations paragraph clarifying this modeling assumption and its relation to end-to-end fidelity. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: TeleSABRE is a heuristic evaluated on external benchmarks

full rationale

The paper extends the existing SABRE heuristic by incorporating qubit and gate teleportation primitives into the cost function and search procedure for multi-core layouts. The reported 28% reduction in inter-core operations is obtained by executing the modified heuristic on standard quantum circuit benchmarks and counting the resulting operations; this empirical outcome does not reduce, by any equation in the paper, to a quantity defined in terms of a fitted parameter or to a self-citation chain. The modeling of teleport costs and success probabilities is treated as an input assumption rather than derived from the algorithm itself, so the central claim remains independent of the paper's own definitions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on standard domain assumptions about quantum circuit compilation costs and the availability of teleportation primitives; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Teleportation protocols incur known, fixed communication and gate costs that can be precomputed and used inside the heuristic cost function.
    This premise is required for the algorithm to decide between SWAP and teleport moves.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5685 in / 1233 out tokens · 41931 ms · 2026-05-22T15:02:54.588333+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. dSABRE: A SABRE-Style Router for Multi-Core Distributed Quantum Computers

    quant-ph 2026-05 accept novelty 6.0

    dSABRE cuts geometric-mean EPR consumption by 41-44% versus TeleSABRE on 18 benchmark circuits through intra-core priority, a five-term teleportation scorer with capacity penalty, proactive congestion relief, and BFS-...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Quantum algorithms: an overview,

    A. Montanaro, “Quantum algorithms: an overview,” npj Quantum Infor- mation, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2016

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,

    P. W. Shor, “Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,”SIAM review, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 303–332, 1999

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,

    L. K. Grover, “A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,” inACM symposium on Theory of computing, 1996, pp. 212–219

    work page 1996

  4. [4]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press, 2010

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,

    J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,” Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Aaronson, Quantum computing since Democritus

    S. Aaronson, Quantum computing since Democritus . Cambridge University Press, 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Multicore quantum computing,

    H. Jnane, B. Undseth, Z. Cai, S. C. Benjamin, and B. Koczor, “Multicore quantum computing,” Physical Review Applied , vol. 18, no. 4, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Mitigating crosstalk in quantum computers through commutativity-based instruction reordering,

    L. Xie, J. Zhai, and W. Zheng, “Mitigating crosstalk in quantum computers through commutativity-based instruction reordering,” in 2021 58th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 445–450

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Detecting crosstalk errors in quantum information processors,

    M. Sarovar, T. Proctor, K. Rudinger, K. Young, E. Nielsen, and R. Blume-Kohout, “Detecting crosstalk errors in quantum information processors,” Quantum, vol. 4, p. 321, 2020

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor,

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. Brandao, D. A. Buell et al. , “Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor,” Nature, vol. 574, no. 7779, pp. 505–510, 2019

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    Scaling superconducting quantum computers with chiplet architectures,

    K. N. Smith, G. S. Ravi, J. M. Baker, and F. T. Chong, “Scaling superconducting quantum computers with chiplet architectures,” in IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO) , 2022, pp. 1092–1109

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Scalable multi-chip quantum architectures enabled by cryogenic hybrid wireless/quantum-coherent network-in- package,

    E. Alarc ´on, S. Abadal, F. Sebastiano, M. Babaie, E. Charbon, P. H. Bol´ıvar, M. Palesi, E. Blokhina, D. Leipold, B. Staszewski, A. Garcia- S´aez, and C. G. Almudever, “Scalable multi-chip quantum architectures enabled by cryogenic hybrid wireless/quantum-coherent network-in- package,” in 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS),...

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    On the complexity of quan- tum circuit compilation,

    A. Botea, A. Kishimoto, and R. Marinescu, “On the complexity of quan- tum circuit compilation,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial Search , vol. 9, no. 1, 2018, pp. 138–142

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    Qubit allocation,

    M. Y . Siraichi, V . F. d. Santos, C. Collange, and F. M. Q. Pereira, “Qubit allocation,” in International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization, 2018, pp. 113–125

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Tackling the qubit mapping problem for nisq-era quantum devices,

    G. Li, Y . Ding, and Y . Xie, “Tackling the qubit mapping problem for nisq-era quantum devices,” in Proceedings of the twenty-fourth interna- tional conference on architectural support for programming languages and operating systems , 2019, pp. 1001–1014

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    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, 2024

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Modelling short-range quantum teleportation for scalable multi-core quantum com- puting architectures,

    S. Rodrigo, S. Abadal, C. G. Almud ´ever, and E. Alarc ´on, “Modelling short-range quantum teleportation for scalable multi-core quantum com- puting architectures,” in ACM International Conference on Nanoscale Computing and Communication , 2021, pp. 1–7

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    Lightsabre: A lightweight and enhanced sabre algorithm,

    H. Zou, M. Treinish, K. Hartman, A. Ivrii, and J. Lishman, “Lightsabre: A lightweight and enhanced sabre algorithm,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08368, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    A note on two problems in connexion with graphs,

    E. W. Dijkstra, “A note on two problems in connexion with graphs,” in Edsger Wybe Dijkstra: his life, work, and legacy , 2022, pp. 287–290

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Quantum computing with Qiskit,

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross, B. R. Johnson, and J. M. Gambetta, “Quantum computing with Qiskit,” 2024

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    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

  22. [22]

    Hungarian qubit assignment for optimized mapping of quantum cir- cuits on multi-core architectures,

    P. Escofet, A. Ovide, C. G. Almudever, E. Alarc ´on, and S. Abadal, “Hungarian qubit assignment for optimized mapping of quantum cir- cuits on multi-core architectures,” IEEE Computer Architecture Letters , vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 161–164, 2023

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Scalable optimal layout synthesis for nisq quantum processors,

    W.-H. Lin, J. Kimko, B. Tan, N. Bjørner, and J. Cong, “Scalable optimal layout synthesis for nisq quantum processors,” in 2023 60th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–6

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Or-tools,

    L. Perron and V . Furnon, “Or-tools,” Google. [Online]. Available: https://developers.google.com/optimization/

    work page

  25. [25]

    Compiler design for distributed quantum computing,

    D. Ferrari, A. S. Cacciapuoti, M. Amoretti, and M. Caleffi, “Compiler design for distributed quantum computing,” IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 1–20, 2021

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Tackling the qubit mapping problem for nisq-era quantum devices,

    G. Li, Y . Ding, and Y . Xie, “Tackling the qubit mapping problem for nisq-era quantum devices,” in International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems , 2019, pp. 1001–1014

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    Optimal qubit assignment and routing via integer programming,

    G. Nannicini, L. S. Bishop, O. G ¨unl¨uk, and P. Jurcevic, “Optimal qubit assignment and routing via integer programming,” ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing , vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–31, 2022

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Practical and efficient quantum circuit synthesis and transpiling with reinforcement learning,

    D. Kremer, V . Villar, H. Paik, I. Duran, I. Faro, and J. Cruz-Benito, “Practical and efficient quantum circuit synthesis and transpiling with reinforcement learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13196 , 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Reinforcement learning and dear framework for solving the qubit mapping problem,

    C.-Y . Huang, C.-H. Lien, and W.-K. Mak, “Reinforcement learning and dear framework for solving the qubit mapping problem,” in 41st IEEE/ACM international conference on computer-aided design , 2022, pp. 1–9

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    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

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    Optimized quan- tum circuit partitioning,

    O. Daei, K. Navi, and M. Zomorodi-Moghadam, “Optimized quan- tum circuit partitioning,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics , vol. 59, no. 12, pp. 3804–3820, 2020

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    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

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    Efficient distribution of quantum circuits,

    R. G Sundaram, H. Gupta, and C. Ramakrishnan, “Efficient distribution of quantum circuits,” in 35th International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC 2021) . Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum f ¨ur Informatik, 2021, pp. 41–1

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    Mapping quantum circuits to modular architectures with qubo,

    M. Bandic, L. Prielinger, J. N ¨ußlein, A. Ovide, S. Rodrigo, S. Abadal, H. Van Someren, G. Vardoyan, E. Alarcon, C. G. Almudever et al. , “Mapping quantum circuits to modular architectures with qubo,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineer- ing (QCE), vol. 1. IEEE, 2023, pp. 790–801

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    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, 2023

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    Revisiting the mapping of quantum circuits: Entering the multi-core era,

    P. Escofet, A. Ovide, M. Bandic, L. Prielinger, H. van Someren, S. Feld, E. Alarc ´on, S. Abadal, and C. G. Almud ´ever, “Revisiting the mapping of quantum circuits: Entering the multi-core era,” ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 2024

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Attention-Based Deep Reinforcement Learning for Qubit Allocation in Modular Quantum Architectures

    E. Russo, M. Palesi, D. Patti, G. Ascia, and V . Catania, “Attention-based deep reinforcement learning for qubit allocation in modular quantum architectures,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11452 , 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Mech: Multi-entry communication highway for superconducting quan- tum chiplets,

    H. Zhang, K. Yin, A. Wu, H. Shapourian, A. Shabani, and Y . Ding, “Mech: Multi-entry communication highway for superconducting quan- tum chiplets,” in 29th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems , 2024

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Route-forcing: Scalable quantum circuit mapping for scalable quantum computing architectures,

    P. Escofet, A. Gonzalvo, E. Alarc ´on, C. G. Almud ´ever, and S. Abadal, “Route-forcing: Scalable quantum circuit mapping for scalable quantum computing architectures,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , vol. 1. IEEE, 2024, pp. 909–920

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    Exploiting quantum teleporta- tion in quantum circuit mapping,

    S. Hillmich, A. Zulehner, and R. Wille, “Exploiting quantum teleporta- tion in quantum circuit mapping,” in Proceedings of the 26th Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference , 2021, pp. 792–797

    work page 2021

  41. [41]

    Improving qubit routing by using entanglement mediated remote gates,

    G. Padda, E. Tham, A. Brodutch, and D. Touchette, “Improving qubit routing by using entanglement mediated remote gates,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 1. IEEE, 2024, pp. 1770–1776

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    Compiler for distributed quantum computing: a reinforcement learning approach,

    P. Promponas, A. Mudvari, L. Della Chiesa, P. Polakos, L. Samuel, and L. Tassiulas, “Compiler for distributed quantum computing: a reinforcement learning approach,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.17077 , 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    A modular quantum compila- tion framework for distributed quantum computing,

    D. Ferrari, S. Carretta, and M. Amoretti, “A modular quantum compila- tion framework for distributed quantum computing,” IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering , vol. 4, pp. 1–13, 2023

    work page 2023

  44. [44]

    Improving figures of merit for quantum circuit compilation,

    P. Hopf, N. Quetschlich, L. Schulz, and R. Wille, “Improving figures of merit for quantum circuit compilation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13155, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025