Benchmarking study demonstrates multi-batch circuit scheduling lowers execution costs on cloud quantum processors, indicating viable throughput gains without progressive noise degradation.
Quantum Processing Units are rapidly scaling, with current systems exceeding 100 qubits and targeting one billion operations in the near future. However, Quantum Computing as a Service platforms are facing growing pressure due to high user demand and long execution queues. This is primarily due to resource underutilization and the current execution model, which typically allows only one job per queue slot. Additionally, high costs are associated with the execution of each job. To address these limitations, this paper proposes a multi-batch quantum circuit scheduling approach aimed at increasing hardware utilization and reducing execution queues. To achieve this, different circuits are packed into various batches to be executed within a single job, where the results obtained in each batch are measured in distinct classical registers. These features allow for the reuse of previously utilized qubits in previous batches, enabling them to be used again for execution without the need to submit a new job. The approach has been validated on the 133-qubit IBM Torino processor through large-scale experiments with multiple circuits and controlled noise isolation tests. By reducing repeated queue interactions and job submission overhead, the proposed method increases execution throughput, allowing for numerous circuit executions within a single job. Under the evaluated conditions, this approach achieves significant execution cost reductions compared to traditional circuit submissions. Although the method incurs an overall absolute noise penalty, it allows packing numerous circuits into a single iteration, resulting in substantial financial savings. Furthermore, the noise level remains stable from the first to the last batch, showing no progressive degradation over time.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moreno-Velez et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: