Quantum Cloud Computing: A Review, Open Problems, and Future Directions

HOA T. NGUYEN, Cloud Computing and Distributed Systems (CLOUDS) Laboratory, School of Computing and
Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Australia
PRABHAKAR KRISHNAN, Center for Cybersecurity Systems and Networks, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, India
DILIP KRISHNASWAMY, Quantum Walks Technologies (QWalks), USA
MUHAMMAD USMAN, School of Physics, The University of Melbourne, Australia and Data61, CSIRO, Australia
RAJKUMAR BUYYA, Cloud Computing and Distributed Systems (CLOUDS) Laboratory, School of Computing and
arXiv:2404.11420v1 [cs.ET] 17 Apr 2024

Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Australia

Quantum cloud computing is an emerging paradigm of computing that empowers quantum applications and their deployment on
quantum computing resources without the need for a specialized environment to host and operate physical quantum computers. This
paper reviews recent advances, identifies open problems, and proposes future directions in quantum cloud computing. It discusses the
state-of-the-art quantum cloud advances, including the various cloud-based models, platforms, and recently developed technologies
and software use cases. Furthermore, it discusses different aspects of the quantum cloud, including resource management, quantum
serverless, security, and privacy problems. Finally, the paper examines open problems and proposes the future directions of quantum
cloud computing, including potential opportunities and ongoing research in this emerging field.

CCS Concepts: • Computer systems organization → Cloud computing; Quantum computing; • General and reference →
Surveys and overviews.

Additional Key Words and Phrases: quantum cloud computing, quantum serverless, distributed quantum computing, quantum cloud
security, quantum resource management

1 INTRODUCTION
Quantum computing is anticipated to revolutionize many scientific fields by promising to solve intractable computational
problems beyond the capabilities of the state-of-the-art classical computers. Although quantum computers are still
in the early stages of development, they have already been used to address critical problems, such as simulating
the behavior of molecules [57, 119] and discovering new drugs [9, 24, 207]. However, acquiring a dedicated physical
quantum computer and hosting it is challenging as they require an extremely special environment to host and operate,
such as extremely cold temperatures and complicated controlling [163]. Due to the complexity of operating a physical
quantum computer, hosting them within cloud computing environments is the most common, as they provide easy
access to today’s quantum computation resources. Thus, quantum machines are placed in a remote data center with
particular environmental conditions. These devices can interact with end-users via the vendor cloud platform, which
allows for the execution of quantum circuits and the retrieval of the computation result. Engineers and researchers,
therefore, have more convenient ways to access and utilize quantum devices remotely from their local computers. This
model shortens the pathway to achieving quantum advantages in the current era of noisy intermediate-scale quantum
(NISQ) hardware. NISQ devices, characterized by their tens to hundreds of qubit scale, operate with a significant level
Authors’ addresses: Hoa T. Nguyen, thanhhoan@student.unimelb.edu.au, Cloud Computing and Distributed Systems (CLOUDS) Laboratory, School of
Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Prabhakar Krishnan, kprabhakar@am.amrita.edu, Center
for Cybersecurity Systems and Networks, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amritapuri Campus, Kerala, India; Dilip Krishnaswamy, dilip@ieee.org, Quantum
Walks Technologies (QWalks), New Jersey, NJ, USA; Muhammad Usman, School of Physics, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
and Data61, CSIRO, Clayton, Victoria, Australia, musman@unimelb.edu.au; Rajkumar Buyya, Cloud Computing and Distributed Systems (CLOUDS)
Laboratory, School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia, rbuyya@unimelb.edu.au.
1
2 H. Nguyen, P. Krishnan, D. Krishnaswamy, M. Usman, and R. Buyya

of noise and limited qubit coherence times, which presents unique challenges for quantum computation [150]. Despite
these limitations, NISQ technology offers a promising platform for exploring quantum algorithms and applications
prior to the advent of fault-tolerant quantum computing.
The emerging field of quantum cloud computing (QCC) combines the principles of quantum computing with cloud
infrastructure, enabling remote access to quantum computers. This integration promises to significantly lower the
barrier to utilizing quantum computing resources, making it feasible for researchers and developers to explore quantum
algorithms without the need for their own quantum hardware. Given the rapid advancements in QCC, which democratize
access to quantum computational power and facilitate a wide range of applications from cryptography [77, 98, 103],
quantum machine learning [45, 58, 59, 72], to complex system simulations [57, 119], there is a pressing need for a
comprehensive review of the current research and developments in this area. This survey aims to examine the progress
of QCC through the perspective of corresponding concepts and problems in classical cloud computing and provide
a useful resource for researchers in both quantum computing and cloud computing domains. This paper organizes
the key aspects of QCC into five areas: 1) computing models, 2) software use cases, 3) providers and platforms, 4)
resource management, and 5) security and privacy. For each aspect, we present a summary of the pioneering work, its
relationship to classical models, its variants, and its potential applications in advancing practical research. To the best
of our knowledge, this is one of the first reviews of QCC, and we hope it will serve as a valuable guide for researchers
and practitioners in the domain.

1.1 Contributions
As one of the first comprehensive review on quantum cloud computing, the major contributions and novelty of our
review article are:

• We introduce the concepts and survey recent studies of quantum cloud computing and its emerging models,
including hybrid quantum-classical computing and quantum serverless. We summarize key industrial players
in quantum cloud computing and recent developments in the field.
• We provide a comprehensive overview of the state-of-the-art, including the various technologies, platforms, and
applications that have been developed for quantum cloud computing. Our survey presents various applications
of quantum cloud computing in different fields, such as machine learning and cryptography. We also review
quantum cloud providers and software platforms for utilizing quantum cloud resources.
• We review recent advances in quantum cloud computing in emerging aspects, including quantum cloud resource
management, distributed quantum computation techniques, and quantum cloud security.
• We identify key challenges and open problems that need to be overcome, ongoing research, and propose future
research directions to realize the potential of quantum cloud computing fully.

1.2 Related surveys

In the literature, numerous review papers and surveys focus on quantum computation and information, as summarized
in Table 1. Some surveys also cover the communication and networking aspects of quantum computing. However,
very few papers are solely dedicated to quantum cloud computing. Moreover, the reviews that include this topic often
provide only a superficial discussion or lack a detailed analysis of its recent advances and open problems. To bridge the
gap, our work focuses on reviewing different aspects of recent quantum cloud computing development, including its
architectures, computation models, applications, security, and relevant open research problems.
Quantum Cloud Computing: A Review, Open Problems, and Future Directions 3

Table 1. Summary of related surveys on quantum cloud computing (QC: Quantum computing, QS: Quantum software, QML: Quantum
machine learning, QN: Quantum Network, QDS: Quantum Distributed Systems)

Survey Focus Topic covered Year

Gyongyosi et al. [66] QC fundamentals and quantum algorithm implementations 2019
Gill et al. [56] Taxonomy, systematic review and future directions of QC 2021
QC
Resch and Karpuzcu [158] QC benchmarking, quantum noise 2021
Yang et al. [200] Quantum hardware, quantum networks, quantum cryptography, QML 2023
Serrano et al. [167] QS components, platforms, and quality assessments 2022
Moguel et al. [127] QS Service-oriented QS, practical implementation, and limitations 2022
Khan et al. [92] QS architectures, tools, and frameworks 2023
O’Quinn and Mao [139] QML algorithms, quantum cloud platforms, quantum annealing 2020
Zhang et al. [205] QML algorithms and applications 2020
QML
Massoli et al. [123] QC, quantum perceptrons, quantum neural networks 2022
Tian et al. [183] Quantum Generative Machine Learning models 2023
Caleffi et al. [21] Quantum Internet 2018
Wehner et al. [194] Quantum Internet 2018
Cacciapuoti et al. [19] QN Quantum Internet 2020
Mehic et al. [124] Network aspects for Quantum Key Distribution 2020
Fang et al. [46] QN components, devices, protocols, applications and toolkits 2023
Kaiiali et al. [89] Impact of QC on cloud computing and vice versa 2019
Cuomo et al. [34] Vision for quantum distributed system 2020
Leymann et al. [100] QDS Applications, use cases and collaborative quantum platforms 2020
Loke [117] QDS, quantum network, quantum Internet computing 2022
Caleffi et al. [20] Networking, compiling, and simulation approaches for QDS 2022
Concepts, architecture models, software and frameworks, resource
Our work - This paper 2024
management, security and privacy of quantum cloud computing

There has been tremendous work in recent years regarding general quantum computing surveys. Gyongyosi et al.
[66] reviewed the fundamentals of quantum computing, large-scale computing models, and recent quantum algorithm
implementations. Similarly, Gill et al. [56] proposed a taxonomy of quantum computing, a systematic review of recent
progress, and the future direction of quantum computing in general. Although they briefly mention quantum cloud
computing as a potential direction, no detailed analysis or discussion was provided. From a practical perspective, Resch
and Karpuzcu [158] reviewed different benchmarking approaches for quantum systems and investigated the impact of
quantum noise on the performance of quantum computers. Subsequently, Yang et al. [200] provided a comprehensive
survey to illustrate the big picture of key challenges in quantum computing and communications, focusing on quantum
hardware, quantum networks, quantum cryptography, and quantum machine learning.
In terms of quantum software engineering, Serrano et al. [167] reviewed the quantum software components and
platforms and proposed the quality assessment requirements for quantum software. Similarly, Moguel et al. [127]
reviewed the current state of quantum software engineering, focusing on service-oriented quantum computing, with
several case study implementations on Amazon Braket. Additionally, Khan et al. [92] provided a comprehensive
study of the architectures, frameworks, and tools for quantum software engineering. In addition to the core topics
of quantum computing, Quantum Machine Learning (QML) has emerged as a pivotal area of research, attracting
substantial attention for its potential to revolutionize computational paradigms. Several surveys have systematically
cataloged the advancements and applications of QML algorithms. O’Quinn and Mao [139] provided a brief overview of
quantum machine learning algorithms and existing quantum cloud platforms for quantum applications. Zhang et al.
4 H. Nguyen, P. Krishnan, D. Krishnaswamy, M. Usman, and R. Buyya

[205] provided a comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art in quantum machine learning algorithms, highlighting
their applications and the theoretical underpinnings that facilitate these advancements. Massoli et al. [123] review
recent progress in theoretical formulations, simulations, and implementations of quantum perceptrons and quantum
neural networks. Similarly, Tian et al. [183] offered a focused review on the advancement within quantum generative
learning models, outlining the recent developments and their implications for the broader field of quantum computing.
From a distributed computing perspective, many studies reviewed quantum networks and the quantum Internet,
focusing on quantum communication, security, and networking aspects. Caleffi et al. [21] briefly discussed several
research problems for quantum Internet design and development. Similarly, Wehner et al. [194] provided an overview
of the current stage and outlook on the quantum Internet, highlighting the requirement to build a reliable large-scale
quantum network in the future. Subsequently, Cacciapuoti et al. [19] review the quantum Internet’s key principles and
network challenges. Mehic et al. [124] reviewed the recent development of the quantum key distribution, focusing on
networking aspects. Similar surveys by Singh et al. [173] and Krishnamurthi et al. [97] also comprehensively review
the recent advancement of quantum Internet regarding its applications, functionalities, and technologies. Illiano et
al. [83] provided the state-of-the-art quantum Internet protocol stack and outlined several research directions. Some
review and vision articles also focused on distributed quantum computing, such as [20, 34, 117]. Cuomo et al. [34]
discussed the vision for a future distributed quantum computing ecosystem, with quantum Internet as the key underlying
infrastructure. Loke [117] devised an overview of quantum distributed computing and quantum networking toward
quantum Internet computing in the future. In [20], Caleffi et al. provided an overview of recent advances and key
challenges of distributed quantum computing concerning quantum networking, quantum compiling, and simulation
approaches. Fang et al. [46] provided a holistic review of different aspects of quantum networks from both theoretical
and practical perspectives. This study discusses the recent development of quantum network components, physical
devices, protocols, applications, and network toolkits for scientific research. A few existing studies paid attention
to quantum computing’s impact on cloud computing. Kaiiali et al. [89] reviewed the potential impact of quantum
computing on cloud computing and vice versa. However, this article focuses on the security aspect and some high-level
impact of these two areas on each other without reviewing the recent advances, opportunities, and open challenges of
quantum cloud computing as our survey. Leymann et al. [100] reviewed some application potentials and opportunities
of quantum computing on the cloud, focusing on software tools and platforms for collaborating to develop quantum
applications. In [176], Soeparnoa et al. conducted some experiences on IBM Quantum and Qutech cloud services and
gave some general overview and comparison between these quantum cloud platforms.
However, as far as we are aware, none of the existing surveys focused explicitly on recent advances in quantum
cloud computing, such as the quantum cloud service model, quantum serverless, resource management, cloud-based
platforms, and related open problems. Therefore, our paper can be considered one of the first surveys focusing on
different aspects of quantum cloud computing. It provides a thorough review of recent advances, research challenges,
and open problems in this emerging yet crucial research area.

1.3 Structure of the survey

The structure of this survey is illustrated in Figure 1, and the rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2
covers the foundational concepts of quantum computing and cloud computing to accommodate the diversity of readers’
backgrounds. In Section 3, we comprehensively review recent research on quantum cloud computing and examine their
connections to classical cloud computing models. This section is divided into six sub-sections, focusing on quantum
cloud computing concepts and providers, quantum cloud applications, quantum serverless, resource management
Quantum Cloud Computing: A Review, Open Problems, and Future Directions 5

Fig. 1. The graphical outline of the survey

problems, distributed quantum computing, and quantum cloud security. Then, we discuss the challenges and potential
future directions in the field of quantum cloud computing in section 4. Finally, we conclude and summarize our survey
in section 5.

2 A SYNOPSIS OF QUANTUM COMPUTING AND CLOUD COMPUTING

This section provides a brief overview of quantum computing and cloud computing to take into account the diverse
backgrounds of readers.

2.1 Quantum Computing

Quantum computing is an emerging paradigm that utilizes quantum-mechanical phenomena, such as superposition
and entanglement, to perform operations on data. It has the potential to solve certain problems such as optimization
[47, 94, 99], financial modeling [70, 140], molecule simulation [57, 119], and machine learning [45, 58, 59, 72, 197] much
faster than classical computers. The subsequent discussion focuses on the cornerstone of quantum computing: the
quantum bit, computation models, and quantum algorithms.

2.1.1 Quantum bits (Qubits). A quantum bit (or qubit) is the basic unit of quantum information. Different from classical
bits, which can exist in one of two states (0 or 1), qubits are characterized by their ability to exist in a superposition
state, i.e., they can be in a combination of both states 0 and 1 simultaneously. This property enables the representation
and processing of a richer set of information possibilities compared to classical bits. Another key characteristic of
qubits is entanglement, a quantum phenomenon where the state of one qubit becomes inextricably linked to the state
of another, regardless of the distance between them. This linkage means the properties of entangled qubits cannot be
described independently of each other [134]. These distinctive features of qubits could enable quantum computers
6 H. Nguyen, P. Krishnan, D. Krishnaswamy, M. Usman, and R. Buyya

to execute certain computations more efficiently than classical computers, potentially solving problems considered
intractable for classical computation.

Table 2. A summary of common quantum gates and their mathematical representation

Quantum gates Description Mathematical Representation

" #
0 1
Pauli-X A bit flip gate, which acts as a ro- 𝜎𝑋 = 𝑋 = = |0⟩ ⟨1| + |1⟩ ⟨0|
tation by 𝜋 around the X-axis of 1 0
the Bloch sphere
Single-qubit

" #
0 −𝑖
Pauli-Y A bit and phase flip gate, which 𝜎𝑌 = 𝑌 = = −𝑖 |0⟩ ⟨1| + 𝑖 |1⟩ ⟨0| = 𝑖.𝜎𝑋 .𝜎𝑍
acts as a rotation by 𝜋 around the 𝑖 0
Y-axis of the Bloch sphere
" #
1 0
Pauli-Z A phase flip gate, which acts as a 𝜎𝑍 = 𝑍 = = |0⟩ ⟨0| − |1⟩ ⟨1|
rotation by 𝜋 around the Z-axis 0 −1
of the Bloch sphere
" #
1 1
Hadamard (H) A gate to create a superposition 𝐻= √1 = √1 ( |0⟩ ⟨0| + |0⟩ ⟨1| + |1⟩ ⟨0| − |1⟩ ⟨1| )
2 1 −1 2
of |0⟩ and |1⟩
" #
1 0
Phase (𝑃𝜙 ) A parametrized gate performs a 𝑃 (𝜙 ) = where 𝜙 is a real number
rotation of 𝜙 around the Z-axis 0 𝑒 𝑖𝜙
direction
" #
1 0
Identity (I) A gate that have no effect on the 𝐼=
qubit state 0 1
" # " #
√ 1 0 1 0
S (or 𝑍 ) A 𝑃 (𝜙 ) gate with 𝜙 = 𝜋 /2, apply 𝑆= = 𝑖𝜋
a quarter-turn around the Bloch 0 𝑖 0 𝑒 2

sphere
" #
√ 1 0
T (or 4 𝑍 ) A 𝑃 (𝜙 ) gate with 𝜙 = 𝜋 /4 𝑇 = 𝑖𝜋
0 𝑒 4
1 0 0 0

 
0 0 1 0
CNOT (or CX) A 2-qubit gate that flips the target 𝐶𝑋 =   = |00⟩ ⟨00| + |01⟩ ⟨01| + |10⟩ ⟨11| + |11⟩ ⟨10|
Multi-qubit

qubit when the control qubit is in 0 0 0 1

 
the state |1⟩ 0
 0 1 0
1 0 0 0
 
 
0 0 1 0
SWAP A 2-qubit gate that swap (ex- 𝑆𝑊 𝐴𝑃 =   
0 1 0 0

change) the state of these two  
qubits 0 0 0 1
 
Toffoli (or CCX) A 3-qubit gate that flips the third 𝐶𝐶𝑋𝑞 0 , 𝑞 1 , 𝑞 2 = 𝐼 ⊗ 𝐼 ⊗ |0⟩ ⟨0| + 𝐶𝑋 ⊗ |1⟩ ⟨1|
qubit if the first two qubits are
both in state |1⟩

2.1.2 Quantum computation models. Two distinct quantum computing models are being concurrently developed:
gate-based computations and quantum annealing-based computations. Gate-based models, also known as circuit-based
models, use a set of quantum gates to perform operations on qubits. These gates are used to manipulate the state of
qubits and perform operations on them. Table 2 briefly summarizes typical quantum gates’ characteristics. Gate-based
Quantum Cloud Computing: A Review, Open Problems, and Future Directions 7

models are based on building a quantum circuit to realize a sequence of gates that perform a specific computation. The
action of quantum gates can be represented as a unitary transform on qubits. If a sequence of gates 𝐺 1 , 𝐺 2 , . . .𝐺𝑚 are
applied to a set of input qubit state vector 𝑄, then the resultant state is given by the corresponding cascaded sequence of
unitary transforms applied to the input vector 𝑄 given by the matrix product 𝐺𝑚 . . . 𝐺 2𝐺 1𝑄. This approach allows for
flexibility and can be used to support a wide range of quantum algorithms, such as search and factorization problems.
Quantum annealing-based computations support an alternate paradigm of computation, and they are typically utilized
to solve optimization problems. In this approach, an energy function (also known as the Hamiltonian of the system) is
used to represent an optimization problem under consideration. For example, a QUBO (Quadratic Unconstrained Binary
Optimization) [99] formulation involves self-coupling weights 𝑤𝑖𝑖 for qubit states 𝑥𝑖 and cross-coupling weight terms
Í Í
𝑤𝑖 𝑗 for pairwise products of qubit state terms 𝑥𝑖 𝑥 𝑗 to result in an energy function of the form 𝐻 = 𝑖 𝑤𝑖𝑖 𝑥𝑖 + 𝑖 𝑗 𝑤𝑖 𝑗 𝑥𝑖 𝑥 𝑗 .
Many optimization problems can be reduced to such a form for the energy function that is desired to be minimized.
There are physical self-coupling and cross-coupling connections in an annealing-based quantum computer. In some
simple cases, the optimization problem can be directly mapped to the physical networked connections in the quantum
computer. In other cases where this is not feasible (for example, where the desired degree of cross-coupled connectivity is
higher than the physically available connectivity), then the problem can be transformed (for example, by splitting a node
with high vertex connectivity into multiple nodes) such that the problem can be reduced to a form that can be mapped
to the physically available connectivity. The system is initialized to a random or known initial state. Subsequently, the
quantum system is allowed to evolve until it settles down or anneals to a low-energy state as it attempts to minimize
the energy function. The resultant low-energy state provides the solution to the problem. Due to the likelihood of the
system getting trapped in a local minimum, multiple runs of the algorithm are attempted starting with different initial
states, and the lowest energy solution across different runs can be utilized as the solution to the problem.
In general, multiple runs of a quantum algorithm are typically performed for both gate-based computation and
annealing-based computations. This is due to the noisy nature of quantum computation, which results from the
temperature-dependent entropy in the system. In addition, due to superposition, when the qubits are measured at the
end of the computation, low probability states can also occur as solutions, albeit with a reduced likelihood of occurrence,
so that the observed solutions post-measurement from the quantum system can vary across different runs. From across
these multiple runs, the best solution is chosen by evaluating an energy function for the solutions across different runs,
or the solution that occurs more often is chosen as the solution to the problem under consideration.

2.1.3 Quantum Algorithms. Quantum computation leverages unique quantum-mechanical properties, such as superpo-
sition, entanglement, and interference, to process information encoded in quantum bits (qubits). Unlike classical bits,
which are binary, qubits can exist in the superposition of multiple states, enabling quantum algorithms to perform
certain computations more efficiently than their classical counterparts. One notable example is Shor’s algorithm [171],
which demonstrates a significant speedup in factorizing large integers compared to classical approaches. This algorithm
exploits quantum superposition and entanglement to find the prime factors of an integer exponentially faster than the
best-known classical algorithms. The implications of Shor’s algorithm are profound, particularly in cryptography, as
many current encryption methods, such as RSA, rely on the high computational complexity of factorizing large numbers.
The advent of quantum computing thus poses a potential threat to these encryption systems. Another prevalent quantum
algorithm is Grover’s algorithm [64], designed for searching unstructured databases. Grover’s algorithm achieves a
quadratic speedup over classical search algorithms. In a database of N unstructured items, Grover’s algorithm can find
8 H. Nguyen, P. Krishnan, D. Krishnaswamy, M. Usman, and R. Buyya

√
the desired item in roughly 𝑁 steps, compared to the N steps required classically. This speedup, while less dramatic
than that of Shor’s algorithm, is still significant and has implications for a wide range of search-related problems.
In recent years, advancements in quantum algorithms have expanded beyond these foundational concepts, embracing
more complex and application-specific algorithms. Among these, the Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) and
Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) have gained prominence. The Variational Quantum Eigensolver
(VQE) [144] is a hybrid quantum-classical algorithm primarily used in quantum chemistry for finding the ground
state energy of molecules. VQE operates by preparing a quantum state on a quantum computer and measuring its
energy, while a classical computer variably adjusts the quantum state to minimize its energy. This approach leverages
the quantum system for what it does best – representing complex quantum states – and uses classical optimization
techniques to navigate the solution space efficiently. The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) [47]
is designed for solving combinatorial optimization problems, like the Max-Cut problem. QAOA works by encoding the
problem into a Hamiltonian and then applying a series of quantum gates that approximate the problem’s solution. Its
performance improves with the number of quantum layers used, offering a promising approach for achieving quantum
advantage in optimization tasks. Quantum Machine Learning (QML) [196, 197] represents another emerging field. QML
algorithms leverage quantum computing for machine learning tasks, potentially offering speedups in data processing
and pattern recognition. Quantum machine learning is particularly compelling because it merges two cutting-edge
fields, quantum computing and artificial intelligence, potentially leading to breakthroughs in both domains.
While these recent quantum algorithms show great promise, they are still in the developmental stage and face
implementation challenges. They often require a significant number of qubits and sophisticated error correction methods
to be practically viable. However, as quantum technology continues to advance, these algorithms are likely to play a
pivotal role in realizing the practical applications of quantum computing.

2.2 Cloud Computing

Cloud computing has revolutionized how software and IT infrastructure capabilities are made available as subscription-
oriented computing utilities on a pay-as-you-go basis to consumers over the Internet. This paradigm has brought
numerous benefits to society, enabling enterprises to expand globally faster and supporting scientific research advance-
ment [17]. In this section, we briefly discuss their computing models along with the recent emergence of the serverless
computing model.

2.2.1 Cloud computing models. There are several service models and deployment models in cloud computing:
(1) Service models: Cloud computing can be delivered through three main service models, including Infrastructure
as a Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Software as a Service (SaaS) [18]. IaaS provides users
access to physical infrastructures like servers, networking, and data storage. IaaS enables users to outsource the
infrastructure maintenance and management to a cloud provider and flexibly adjust the resources as needed.
PaaS abstracts away the infrastructure and allows developers to think about creating applications on top of a
platform that provides different services, such as authentication, database storage, load-balancing, auto-scaling,
etc., to provide an environment that enables ease of development. SaaS enables applications to be hosted on a
cloud to directly provide services to a user, with the platform and infrastructure aspects abstracted away from
the user of the service.
(2) Deployment models: Cloud computing can be deployed in different manners, including public clouds, private
clouds, and hybrid clouds. For the public cloud, services are provided over the public Internet and are available to
Quantum Cloud Computing: A Review, Open Problems, and Future Directions 9

anyone willing to pay for them. This model offers scalability, flexibility, and efficiency. In terms of private cloud,
infrastructure is dedicated to a single organization, offering more control and security. It can be hosted internally
or externally. Hybrid clouds are combinations of public and private clouds, allowing data and applications to be
shared between them. This model provides greater flexibility and optimization of existing infrastructure.

2.2.2 From Serverful to Serverless computing model. The transition from traditional (or serverful) models to serverless
models marks a significant shift in cloud computing. The serverful computing model requires users to manage servers
and computation resources, demanding setup, maintenance, and scaling, which offers control but adds complexity [203].
Serverless computing, however, abstracts server management, focusing developers on code rather than infrastructure.
It dynamically allocates resources, optimizing costs by charging only for actual usage, and automatically scales to
demand [122]. This shift simplifies operations, reduces costs, and allows for more efficient resource use, emphasizing
development efficiency over infrastructure management [168]. There are two common serverless paradigms:
(1) Function as a Service (FaaS): FaaS allows users to execute code in response to specific events or triggers,
typically through an application programming interface (API). The cloud provider automatically allocates
and sets up the underlying infrastructure required to run the code [202]. Examples of FaaS-based commercial
platforms include Amazon Web Services (AWS) Lambda, Google Cloud Functions, and Microsoft Azure Functions.
Besides, there are numerous open-source FaaS frameworks, such as OpenFaaS, OpenWhisk, and Knative.
(2) Backend as a Service (BaaS) provides a set of pre-built backend services, such as database management, user
authentication, and push notifications, which developers can use to build and run their applications. Examples
of popular BaaS platforms include Firebase, AWS Mobile Hub, AWS Amplify, and Microsoft Azure Mobile Apps.

3 QUANTUM CLOUD COMPUTING AND RECENT ADVANCES

3.1 State-of-the-Art in Quantum Cloud Computing
Quantum Cloud Computing (QCC) represents an emerging computational paradigm that integrates the principles of
quantum computing with cloud computing, enabling quantum computations to be executed on cloud-based quantum
platforms. This model allows for quantum computational resources to be either publicly accessible via the Internet
(public quantum cloud) or privately within a specific organization through a secured network (private quantum cloud),
thereby democratizing access to quantum computing capabilities. QCC allows users to perform quantum computing
tasks without investing in their own quantum hardware. As depicted in Figure 2, users interact with these quantum
computational resources through a cloud interface, utilizing APIs to access software as a service. This paradigm
facilitates the decomposition of large-scale quantum applications into microservices [161] and quantum functions
[132], which can then be efficiently deployed and managed on a cloud-based platform. The cloud platform comprises
essential components for orchestrating the quantum runtime and execution environment, resource allocation, storage,
and networking. Ultimately, the quantum workload is processed in quantum computers and managed at remote data
centers.
A key innovation in QCC is the potential integration with the quantum Internet. This paradigm promises to
revolutionize data communication by utilizing quantum principles for network communications, potentially eliminating
the need for classical intermediaries in quantum data exchange. However, the realization of a mature quantum Internet
remains a future goal, with current challenges including the development of robust quantum communication protocols
and the integration of quantum and classical systems [21, 194]. Presently, the interconnection between cloud-based
quantum computers and users still predominantly relies on classical Internet and computing technologies, leading to
10 H. Nguyen, P. Krishnan, D. Krishnaswamy, M. Usman, and R. Buyya

the emergence of hybrid quantum cloud computing models. These hybrid models combine quantum computational
power with classical networking and data processing, offering a pragmatic step towards fully realizing quantum cloud
computing’s potential.

Fig. 2. A high-level view of contemporary quantum cloud computing

Quantum cloud computing is still an emerging field; however, it is witnessing increasing interest from both corporate
and academic entities focused on developing and deploying these services. Singh et al. [174] highlighted the idea of
quantum-cloud integration and implied this combination would be the potential approach of future quantum computing.
One of the first trials to bring quantum resources to the cloud was conducted by the Center for Quantum Photonics
(CQP) at the University of Bristol [39] in early 2016. They introduced a two-qubit optical-based quantum computer,
accessible through the Internet for testing purposes, marking the initiation of quantum resources into the cloud domain.
Subsequent to this, industry giants such as IBM [78], Amazon Web Services (AWS) [61], and Microsoft Azure [125]
began to provide quantum computing services to the public as part of their cloud services offerings. These initiatives
underscored the viability and growing accessibility of quantum computing resources via cloud platforms. Karalekas et
al. [91] detailed the architecture of a typical quantum cloud computing platform, specifying four essential components:
1) an apparatus for accommodating physical qubits, 2) a control system for manipulating the apparatus, 3) an executor
for orchestrating the control system, and 4) a compiler for compiling quantum circuit for the executor. Faro et al. [48]
introduced a concept for a hybrid quantum cloud computing architecture that incorporates middleware designed to
facilitate the integration and management of quantum and classical computations. Furthermore, several works have
been proposed to enhance the error robustness of cloud-based quantum computer interfaces. For example, Carvalho
et al. [26] achieved substantial error reduction in quantum logic operations using optimized pulses through a cloud
quantum computing interface, marking a pivotal advancement in enhancing the reliability and performance of quantum
computations. These developments collectively represent the initial steps towards establishing a standardized approach
for cloud-based quantum infrastructure across academia and industry, aiming to realize the full potential of quantum
cloud computing.
Due to the noisy intermediate-scale nature of available quantum machines [150, 166], high-performance quantum
simulators also need to be provided through the cloud to create the experiment environment for quantum-related
Quantum Cloud Computing: A Review, Open Problems, and Future Directions 11

research. Most quantum cloud providers offer access to large-scale quantum simulators for prototyping quantum
applications. For example, IBM Quantum [78] offers access to various simulators, including the statevector simulator (32
qubits), QASM simulator (32 qubits), and the Clifford simulator, which supports up to 5,000 qubits for the Clifford circuit.
Similarly, Amazon Braket and Azure Quantum provide access to numerous quantum simulators, such as state vector
simulators, density matrix simulators, and tensor network simulators 1 . Additionally, Intel also offers a cloud-ready
quantum simulator [65] with high-performance capabilities for simulating up to 42-qubit quantum circuits, supporting
numerical studies, noise/error modeling, and parallel quantum device emulation. It is also important to note that the
number of qubits in a quantum computer is not the only metric for benchmarking its performance. Many factors
determine the overall performance of a quantum computer, including the quality of the qubits, the error rate, and the
connectivity of the qubits. In [189], IBM researchers suggest that scale, quality, and speed are three key parameters to
measure the performance of NISQ devices. The number of qubits measures scale, quality is determined by quantum
volume [33], and speed is measured by Circuit Layer Operations Per Second (CLOPS).
Given the significant costs associated with cooling and manufacturing quantum computers [37, 101], their usage
costs can be typically higher than utilizing resources on a classical computer. However, due to the ability to support
concurrent superposition of states, quantum computers can naturally execute certain computationally hard tasks
significantly faster than a classical computer. It is advantageous to execute such tasks on a quantum computer in such
cases where the overall cost to execute the task is significantly lower than on a classical computer. Besides the execution
cost, one must consider latency constraints to access a quantum computer. For example, in a hybrid quantum-classical
system, the submission of a task from a classical computer to a quantum computer can involve an access latency of the
order of 10ms to 20ms each way, depending on the distance between these computers. Preparing a task for submission
to a quantum computer can incur additional latency as well. A quantum computer’s resources are typically shared
across different users, so additional considerations, such as a job queuing latency or a task compilation latency [132],
would also need to be considered. In general, one has to carefully consider different constraints, such as the overall cost
for execution and the overall latency to execute a task on a quantum computer, before choosing a quantum computer
over a classical computer to perform a given task.

3.2 Quantum Cloud Computing Models

3.2.1 Quantum Computing as a Service (QCaaS). Quantum Computing as a Service (QCaaS), also referred to as Quantum
as a Service (QaaS), represents a general quantum cloud service model within the evolving quantum cloud computing
landscape [132]. This model provides users with remote access to quantum computing resources, facilitating the
exploration and application of quantum computing without the need to own and maintain quantum hardware. Stefano
et al. [38] proposed the concept of Quantum-Algorithms-as-a-Service (QAaaS) for hybrid quantum-classical applications.
QAaaS abstracts the quantum computing elements from the software development process, enabling developers to
focus more on application logic rather than the intricacies of quantum computation. This abstraction is crucial for
integrating quantum computing into broader IT infrastructures and for making quantum resources more accessible
to a diverse range of users, including those with limited expertise in quantum mechanics. As such, QCaaS is pivotal
in democratizing access to quantum computing resources on the cloud, promoting innovation, and accelerating the
development of quantum applications across various industries [4].

1 https://docs.aws.amazon.com/braket/latest/developerguide/braket-devices.html
12 H. Nguyen, P. Krishnan, D. Krishnaswamy, M. Usman, and R. Buyya

3.2.2 Quantum Serverless. Serverless Quantum Computing is the emerging adoption of a serverless computing model
for empowering quantum computing, making it more usable and reliable by abstracting the application deployment
and infrastructure setup from users [132]. Following this paradigm, users only need to focus on developing quantum
applications using cloud-based services. The serverless applications are highly scalable and effectively utilize the
resource, therefore, optimizing the total cost with the pay-per-use model. The serverless quantum computing model
is well-suited to the hybrid quantum-classical application deployment. In 2021, IBM proposed the proof of concept
for Quantum Serverless architecture [51], which allows the incorporation of quantum and classical tasks in a single
application. They have claimed that direction is the future of quantum programming and have planned to introduce
Quantum Serverless with intelligent orchestration, circuit knitting toolbox, and circuit libraries by 2023 [81].
Cloud-native technologies such as containerization, API gateway, continuous integration, and continuous delivery
can be adopted for developing a quantum serverless platform. Garcia-Alonso et al. [52] proposed a proof of concept for
Quantum API Gateway (QAPI), which adapts API gateway for exposing quantum services. They also demonstrated
that a quantum service could not be deployed permanently inside a quantum computer like its classical counterpart.
Instead, the quantum circuit needs to be compiled and sent to an appropriate quantum device for execution at the run
time. They also proposed an execution time forecasting model to recommend the best quantum computer for each task
and evaluated their proof-of-concept on Amazon Braket service. Dreher et al. [41] proposed a simple container-based
prototype to encapsulate Qiskit codes into a Docker container on the local computer and interact with cloud-based IBM
Quantum service. In [161], the authors demonstrated their trials on deploying hybrid quantum microservices of the
Travelling Salesman Problem (TSP) to reveal the limitation of quantum service engineering. They particularly deployed
adiabatic and gate-based quantum implementations of TSP on the Amazon Braket platform using IonQ, Rigetti, and
D-Wave hardware. The evaluation of this research showed many challenges of quantum service engineering with
current NISQ devices, including the limited number of qubits, error rates, response time, and service costs. Focusing on
the serverless integration aspect, Grossi et al. [63] proposed a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) design to demonstrate the
possibility of integrating serverless workflow for quantum computing. This design comprises three architectural layers
that involve multiple cloud-native technologies and quantum services from IBM. However, integrating the services of a
single vendor can lead to the data lock-in problem, which is popular for serverless computing. Extending the idea of
integrating traditional serverless and cloud-native techniques for quantum computing, QFaaS [132] is one of the first
full-stack serverless function-as-a-service platforms that support multiple quantum SDKs and quantum computing
services. QFaaS supports the deployment of hybrid quantum-classical applications involving DevOps techniques and
a function-as-a-service serverless computing model. The evaluation of QFaaS with practical use cases on multiple
quantum software kits and cloud vendors demonstrates the versatility and potential of bringing serverless techniques
for accelerating quantum software engineering, which has been adopted in industry platforms [30].

3.2.3 Hybrid Quantum-Classical Computing. The current development of almost all quantum cloud computing platforms
still depends on classical architecture, generally referred to as the hybrid quantum-classical cloud (HQCC) [91]. The
sample workflow in an HQCC system is illustrated in Figure 2. In this architecture, users submit their quantum circuits
through web API to the classical cloud services (such as IBM Cloud or Amazon Web Services). These circuits are queued
before being forwarded to a quantum processor for execution. Finally, the results will be returned to the classical cloud
and forwarded to the original user. All popular quantum cloud providers, such as IBM Quantum, Amazon Braket, and
Azure Quantum, are employing this hybrid architecture for their quantum computing service. HQCC utilizes classical
and quantum computing resources in a cloud environment to solve specific problems more efficiently by combining
Quantum Cloud Computing: A Review, Open Problems, and Future Directions 13

the strengths of both types of computing. The aim is to improve the system’s performance by employing the unique
capabilities of quantum computing, like quantum parallelism and entanglement, along with the power and flexibility of
classical computing. Faro et al. [48] proposed the middleware architecture for orchestrating hybrid quantum-classical
computing systems. This heterogeneous architecture highlights the benefits of combining the advantages of both
quantum and classical computing to optimize cloud-based resource utilization. Pfandzelter et al. [145] also proposed a
Kernel-as-a-Service (KaaS) programming model to support heterogeneous workflows involving classical and quantum
computation tasks. This prototype shows promising development of HQCC architecture design in the future.

3.3 Quantum Cloud Applications and Use Cases

Quantum cloud computing is pivotal in the development and deployment of quantum software. As quantum cloud
computing is currently the only way to access quantum computers outside developers, almost all empirical studies have
been conducted using quantum cloud resources. Table 3 provides several representative works to demonstrate practical
use cases of quantum software on the cloud.

Table 3. Representative works on a subset of key use cases of quantum software and services on the quantum cloud environments
(QRNG: Quantum Random Number Generation, QML: Quantum Machine Learning)

Category Reference Highlights

Huang et al. [77] Proposed a cloud-based QRNG on Alibaba Cloud servers by using four differ-
QRNG ent quantum devices (single-photon-detection, phase-fluctuation, photon-
counting-detection, and vacuum-fluctuation)
Li et al. [103] Proposed a source-independent QRNG with parameter optimization and
empirically evaluated on IBM Quantum cloud service
Kumar et al. [98] Proposed a device-independent quantum random number generator on IBM
Quantum based on the combination of multiple Hadamard gates
Gomez et al. [58] Proposed AutoQML, a cloud-based framework to automatically search opti-
mal quantum circuit architecture using qGAN
QML
Gong et al. [59] Proposed a quantum k-means algorithm based on trusted quantum cloud
servers and quantum homomorphic encryption technique
Fadli et al. [45] Proposed a hybrid QML model using Quantum Integrated Cloud Architec-
ture (QICA) for aerospace applications and satellite network optimization
Hibat-Allah et al. [72] Proposed a framework to demonstrate the efficiency of Quantum Circuit
Born Machines (QCBMs) in data-limited scenarios for potential practical
quantum advantage.
Calculated the lowest energy electron arrangement of molecular hydrogen
Chemical O’Malley et al. [138]
using three qubits
Simulation (Google)
Calculated the ground-state energy determination using six qubits for
Kandala et al. [90]
molecules up to BeH2
(IBM)
Fang et al. [152] Proposed quantum protocols for XOR and AND operations and extending
Other
them to multiparty scenarios on quantum cloud
Applications
Gong et al. [60] Proposed a quantum homomorphic encryption ciphertext retrieval scheme
using Grover’s algorithm in quantum cloud computing to enhance data
retrieval efficiency
Azzaoui et al. [44] Proposed a blockchain-based delegated quantum cloud architecture to en-
hance the security for medical data processing
14 H. Nguyen, P. Krishnan, D. Krishnaswamy, M. Usman, and R. Buyya

Quantum Random Number Generation (QRNG), an important application, has seen diverse implementations. For ex-
ample, Huang et al. [77] enhanced cloud cybersecurity by integrating four types of quantum random number generators
on Alibaba Cloud servers, combining their outputs for robust random number generation in high-security applications
like Alipay. Li et al. [103] developed a quantum random number generator (QRNG) on IBM’s cloud-based quantum
computers, addressing the challenge of noise-induced randomness errors. Inspired by source-independent QRNG in
optics, their method estimates errors in superposition state preparation, ensuring randomness even with readout errors,
and optimizes parameters for increased random bit generation rate. Similarly, Kumar et al. [98] demonstrated a Quantum
True Random Number Generator (QTRNG) on IBM’s cloud-based quantum computing platform, showcasing a practical
application of cloud quantum computing in cryptographic operations.
In terms of quantum machine learning (QML) applications, Gomez et al. [58] developed an Automated QML (AutoQML)
framework in a classical-quantum hybrid cloud architecture, enabling parallelized hyperparameter exploration and
model training. They demonstrated training a quantum Generative Adversarial neural Network (qGAN) for generating
energy prices, showcasing the potential of QML in the energy economics sector. Gong et al. [59] proposed a quantum
k-means algorithm that employs quantum homomorphic encryption for security, demonstrating its effectiveness in
reducing client-side computational burden and protecting data privacy in the cloud. Fadli et al. [45] presented the
Quantum Integrated Cloud Architecture (QICA), aimed at enhancing quantum computing for aerospace applications,
especially in satellite networks. They explore the computational benefits of a Hybrid Quantum-Classical machine
learning architecture using IBM Quantum and Qiskit Machine Learning, demonstrating QICA’s potential in advancing
aerospace technology. In their study, Hibat-Allah et al. [72] leverage quantum cloud computing to compare the efficacy
of classical and quantum generative models, particularly Quantum Circuit Born Machines (QCBMs).
One of the most promising applications of quantum computing lies in simulating molecules and chemical reactions.
With quantum computational devices accessible through cloud platforms, researchers in computational chemistry can
now perform simulation experiments more efficiently [162]. Recent advancements from leading technology firms have
underscored the potential of quantum cloud computing in molecular simulation. In 2016, a team from Google utilized
three qubits to determine the ground-state energy configuration of a hydrogen molecule [138]. Following this, IBM
Quantum achieved a milestone in 2017 by simulating the properties of three molecules—hydrogen, lithium hydride, and
beryllium hydride (BeH2) — using six qubits [90]. These developments mark significant progress towards accurately
predicting properties for novel molecules, a crucial step in the drug discovery process [149].
Additionally, there are several applications of quantum cloud computing for cybersecurity and other domains. Fang
et al. [152] developed cloud-assisted quantum protocols for enhanced security in applications like Anonymous Voting
and Multiparty Private Set Intersection, leveraging quantum cryptography. Gong et al. [60] introduced a novel Quantum
Homomorphic Encryption Ciphertext Retrieval (QHECR) scheme based on Grover’s algorithm, addressing the challenge
of efficiently retrieving homomorphically encrypted data in quantum cloud environments. Azzaoui et al. [44] proposed
a Quantum Cloud-as-a-service for Smart Healthcare, combining Quantum Terminal Machines (QTM) and Blockchain
for enhanced security and feasibility. Their architecture offers a scalable and secure solution for complex healthcare
computations, highlighting the practicality and robust security of Q-OTP encryption. In [13], Bova et al. illustrated the
vision of the commercial application of quantum computing cybersecurity, materials and pharmaceuticals, banking,
and finance. Similarly, Hassija et al. [69] highlighted potential applications of quantum computing in various practical
scenarios such as logistics, financial risk analysis, and satellite communication. These examples showcase the versatility
and potential of quantum cloud services in various domains.
Quantum Cloud Computing: A Review, Open Problems, and Future Directions 15

3.4 Quantum Cloud Providers and Platforms

3.4.1 Cloud-enabled quantum hardware providers. Most quantum hardware vendors offer cloud-based access to their
computation resources. We summarize the latest developments of popular cloud-enabled quantum hardware vendors
in Table 4. Several vendors, such as IBM Quantum [78], Rigetti [91], and IonQ [84], offer cloud-based computing
services to their quantum computers, while other providers like Amazon Braket [61] and Azure Quantum [125] mainly
collaborate with third-party hardware vendors to offer quantum computing services. Various technologies such as
superconducting, trapped ions, neutral atoms, and quantum annealing have been employed in building quantum chips
(or quantum processing units - QPUs). Each technique leverages distinct physical systems to implement qubits and
quantum operations [37].

Table 4. A summary of quantum hardware vendors with cloud-based access until March 2024.
(* Annealing qubit; **: Number of variables (qudit); ✓: Yes, -: Not available)

QPU Max Qubit topology Supported Cloud-based access

Hardware vendor
technology qubit Partially Fully SDKs Vendor’s External
count connected connected Cloud Cloud
Alpine Quantum Trapped Qiskit,
20 ✓ ✓ -
Technologies [6] Ion Pennylane
Atom Computing [32] Neutral Atom 1180 ✓ - - -
Quantum
D-Wave [179] 5000* ✓ Ocean ✓ ✓
Annealing
Super-
Google [62] 54 ✓ Cirq ✓ -
conducting
Super-
IBM Quantum [78] 1121 ✓ Qiskit ✓ ✓
conducting
Qiskit, Cirq, tket,
IonQ [84] Trapped Ion 36 ✓ Q#, Pennylane, ✓ ✓
Forge, ProjectQ
Oxford Quantum Super-
32 ✓ tket ✓ ✓
Circuits (OCQ) [136] conducting
Pasqal [141] Neutral Atom 100 ✓ Pulser ✓ ✓
Quantum Computing Photonics
949** ✓ Qatalyst ✓ -
Inc (QCI) [151] (Entropy)
Trapped
Quantinuum [154] 32 ✓ tket, lambeq - ✓
Ion
QuEra [155] Neutral Atom 256 ✓ Braket - ✓
Super-
Quantum Inspire
conducting, 5 ✓ cQASM, QI ✓ ✓
(QuTech) [188]
Solid-state spins
Super-
Rigetti [91] 84 ✓ Quil ✓ ✓
conducting
Pennylane,
Xanadu [198] Photonics 24 ✓ ✓ -
Strawberry Fields

The superconducting technique leverages the properties of superconducting circuits to create qubits. This approach
uses Josephson junctions to exploit quantum mechanical phenomena at macroscopic scales, enabling the manipulation of
quantum states. Superconducting qubits are known for their relatively more straightforward integration into electronic
16 H. Nguyen, P. Krishnan, D. Krishnaswamy, M. Usman, and R. Buyya

systems and potential for scalability [95]. This approach can be considered the most popular technique for developing
quantum computers by many leading companies such as IBM Quantum [78], Rigetti [91], Oxford Quantum Circuits (OCQ)
[136], and Google [62]. In 2019, Google claimed quantum supremacy with their Sycamore 54-qubit superconducting
processor, demonstrating it could perform a specific task in 200 seconds that would take the best classical supercomputer
approximately 10,000 years, marking a significant breakthrough in quantum computing [8]. However, access to Google’s
quantum processor has remained limited to the general public compared to other hardware vendors. IBM Quantum
offers a range of quantum processors available on their cloud-based platform, from 5 qubits to 433 qubits. In 2023, they
released the Condor processor with 1,121 superconducting qubits and a high-performance 133-qubit Heron processor,
marking a significant milestone in quantum hardware development [80]. IBM also demonstrated the utility in quantum
computing with their 127-qubit superconducting processor, showcasing accurate expectation values measurement
beyond classical computation capabilities, highlighting advancements in coherence, calibration, and noise management
as critical enablers for pre-fault-tolerant quantum computing applications [93]. Other companies such as Rigetti [91],
Oxford Quantum Circuits (OCQ) [136], and Quantum Inspire (QuTech) [188] also employed superconducting techniques
for developing their cloud-based quantum hardware. QuTech also demonstrates their second hardware technique to
develop a 2-qubit quantum processor based on single electron spin qubits in silicon [148, 186].
Another popular quantum hardware technique is trapped ion, which leverages ions (charged atoms) trapped
in electromagnetic fields to function as qubits. Lasers are used to perform qubit initialization, manipulation, and
measurement. This method is known for its long coherence times and high-fidelity operations. IonQ [84], Alpine
Quantum Technologies (AQT) [6], and Honeywell Quantum (now part of Quantinuum) [154] are prominent vendors in
this area, with all fully-connected qubit devices developed, demonstrating advanced quantum computing systems based
on trapped ions. Besides, neutral atom technology, which uses lasers to trap and cool neutral atoms (atoms with no
net electric charge) in a 2D or 3D array, also caught attention. This technology promises scalability and high qubit
numbers, as Atom Computing [32] claimed that they successfully developed a 1,180-qubit quantum computer in 2023
and are preparing to make their system available for cloud-based access. Pasqal [141] and QuEra [155] are other notable
examples of companies exploring quantum computing with neutral atoms to develop their cloud-based hardware.
Furthermore, photonics is also a promising technique for developing quantum chips [175]. Quantum Computing Inc
(QCI) introduced their Dirac-3 quantum system as a new approach in quantum computing through Entropy Quantum
Computing (EQC) [151] to support higher-order interactions among qudits and leveraging entropy and noise, enabling
operation at room temperature without cryogenic environment, and promising enhanced computing speed and capacity.
Utilizing photonics, QCI’s system advances beyond traditional two-level qubits by implementing multi-level qudits [23],
with every single photon enabling up to 10,000 levels through various degrees of freedom, like polarization and orbital
angular momentum [160]. This capability allows for the management of up to 949 photons/qudits, where each photon’s
degrees of freedom are harnessed to represent multiple levels, effectively turning each variable into a qudit with its
level signifying the variable’s value [151]. Research into EQC is underway, with the potential to significantly enhance
the energy efficiency of quantum cloud computing by minimizing the cooling requirements of quantum computational
systems. Another company, Xanadu, [198] has developed its nanophotonic quantum chip that can operate at room
temperature, offering advantages in stability and scalability [7].
While superconducting, trapped ion, photonics, and neutral atom techniques are employed to develop gate-based
quantum computers, the quantum annealing approach is designed to solve optimization problems by naturally finding
a quantum system’s ground state. It uses a quantum mechanical process to minimize energy states and find solutions to
optimization problems. D-Wave Systems [179] is the most well-known company specializing in quantum annealing
Quantum Cloud Computing: A Review, Open Problems, and Future Directions 17

technology, offering quantum cloud computing services for specific optimization tasks. However, they recently added
the gate-based quantum model to their roadmap towards developing devices for universal quantum computation.
The selection of quantum hardware technology plays a pivotal role in determining the efficiency and type of
computations that can be executed, directly affecting quantum computing systems’ scalability, coherence time, and error
rates. As this field progresses, the refinement and interaction of these technologies will be fundamental in developing
practical and broadly accessible quantum cloud computing services. Furthermore, the cloud-based provision of quantum
computational resources simplifies the integration with high-performance computing (HPC) resources, promising
enhanced computational capabilities and broader application potential.

3.4.2 Quantum cloud computing services and platforms. Apart from cloud services offered directly from the hardware
vendors, as discussed in the previous section, we summarize other cloud services and frameworks for quantum computing
in Table 5. Most cloud-based quantum computing platforms provide commercial quantum computing as a service. Major
well-known cloud platforms such as Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, and IBM Cloud have
started offering quantum computing services in their cloud ecosystem, opening opportunities for integrating quantum
computation tasks with classical ones. IBM offers access to its self-developed quantum computation resources via IBM
Cloud [79] and IBM Quantum platform [78], while AWS and Azure provide cloud services and platforms to access other
quantum hardware vendors, such as Rigetti, IonQ, and Quantinuum, OCQ, Pasqal, and QuEra. These quantum cloud
platforms also offer a range of software development kits (SDKs) for designing, developing, and evaluating quantum
applications. For example, IBM Quantum provides users with multiple tools, such as IBM Quantum Composer and
IBM Quantum Lab, for designing, visualizing, executing, and analyzing quantum applications. Amazon Braket, Azure
Quantum, and Google Cloud also offer their quantum SDKs, naming Braket, Microsoft Quantum SDKs (along with Q#
programming language), and Cirq, respectively. Strangeworks collaborates with almost all major quantum computing
hardware and software vendors to create a comprehensive cloud platform that offers users access to nearly all available
quantum hardware and other software platforms.
Besides, several cloud-based quantum software-oriented frameworks have been proposed. Hevia et al. [71] proposed
the QuantumPath platform to support the development of quantum applications. This framework integrates multiple
visual editors to aid the design of quantum circuits and supports different SDKs with the tendency to become an agnostic
software framework for quantum computing. QFaaS [132] is another open-source quantum software framework that
supports developing serverless quantum function-as-a-service applications. QFaaS incorporates multiple quantum
SDKs and programming languages and can be extendable to work with different quantum cloud providers, such as IBM
Quantum and Amazon Braket. Furthermore, PlanQK [105] is a comprehensive quantum platform and ecosystem to
support the development of quantum workflow applications with a vision towards establishing a quantum application
marketplace. Besides, several orchestration tools, such as Orquestra [5] and QuantMe [193], are proposed for integrating
classical components and workflow with quantum algorithms. Xin et al. [199] also introduced their quantum cloud
computing service, named NMRCloudQ, in which quantum hardware is developed based on a nuclear magnetic
resonance (NMR) spectrometer. Apart from offering quantum computing services, most quantum cloud platforms and
frameworks provide simulation environments for prototyping and developing quantum applications. Several cloud
platforms, such as 1QCloud [1] and QEMIST [31], are dedicated to providing quantum simulation services for specific
problems such as optimization and quantum chemistry.
18 H. Nguyen, P. Krishnan, D. Krishnaswamy, M. Usman, and R. Buyya

Table 5. Representative quantum cloud platforms and frameworks, until March 2024
(CQS: Commercial quantum service, OSF: Open-source framework, QSim: Quantum simulator, ✓: Yes)

Platforms/ Quantum Supported Serverless Quantum Computing Models

Type
Framework Backends SDKs Model Simulation Annealing Gate-based
1Qloud [1] CQS 1Qbit 1Qbit ✓
Amazon Rigetti, OCQ, Braket, Qiskit,
CQS ✓ ✓ ✓
Braket [61] IonQ, QuEra Pennylane
Quantinuum,
Azure Q#, Qiskit,
CQS Rigetti, IonQ, ✓ ✓
Quantum [125] Cirq,
Pasqal
Google
CQS Google, IonQ Cirq ✓ ✓
Cloud [62]
IBM
CQS IBM Quantum Qiskit ✓ ✓ ✓
Cloud [79]
IBM Quantum,
Qiskit,
PlanQK [105] CQS Amazon Braket, ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Pennylane
Azure Quantum
QEMIST [31] CQS 1Qbit OpenQEMIST ✓
IBM Quantum, Qiskit, Cirq,
QFaaS [132] OSF ✓ ✓ ✓
Strangeworks Q#
IBM Quantum,
QuantumPath Qiskit, Ocean,
CQS Amazon Braket, ✓ ✓ ✓
[71] Braket, Q#
D-Wave, QuTech
IBM Quantum,
Strangeworks Amazon Braket, Qiskit, Braket,
CQS ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
[177] Azure Quantum, Rigetti
Hitachi, Toshiba,...

3.5 Quantum Cloud Resource Management

Similar to traditional cloud computing, quantum resources must be efficiently managed and allocated as quantum
cloud computing continuously advances. However, quantum cloud resource management is facing more complicated
challenges. The first challenges arise due to the heterogeneity of quantum resources in terms of qubit numbers, qubit
connectivity, error rates, and quantum processor speed. Indeed, each quantum hardware technology has different
advantages and limitations in its performance and scalability. For example, trapped ion quantum devices can achieve
higher quantum volume (qubit quality) but face difficulty achieving high processing speed (CLOPS) [12, 189]. In
contrast, the opposite can be seen in spin-based quantum devices. Second, quantum resources are almost fixed, i.e.,
they cannot be divided and scaled flexibly in the same ways as classical ones. We can create multiple virtual machines
or containers inside a single classical host machine or a cluster of machines as isolated environments for executing
independent tasks concurrently. However, no corresponding techniques for quantum resources have been proposed yet.
Besides, each quantum task has different requirements, which are unknown or unpredictable, to allocate an appropriate
quantum device for execution. The uncertainty of quantum task requirements and the fixed resource amount of
quantum computers accelerate the complexity of quantum resource management problems and result in underestimated
or overestimated resource allocation. Therefore, two key sub-problems of quantum resource management must be
considered: resource estimation of quantum tasks and resource allocation (or job scheduling).
Quantum Cloud Computing: A Review, Open Problems, and Future Directions 19

Table 6. Representative works in quantum cloud resource management from both theoretical and empirical perspective

Category Reference Highlights

Suracha et al. [178] Propose QuRE for quantum resource estimation, enhancing design efficiency
Resource
through error rate analysis and various error correction strategies.
Estimation
JavadiAbhari et al. [85] Propose ScaffCC, a scalable framework for quantum circuit analysis and
resource estimation, optimizing hardware-agnostic implementations.
Salm et al. [165] Propose NISQ Analyzer for optimizing quantum backend selection based
on task-specific requirements and available resources.
Ravi et al. [156] Propose the first statistical-based resource management strategy for quan-
tum job using IBM Quantum
Resource Ngoenriang et al. [129] Propose a two-stage stochastic resource allocation technique for distributed
Allocation quantum computing
& Task Kaewpuang et al. [87] Propose a stochastic qubit allocation for quantum cloud under multiple
Scheduling uncertainties of circuit characteristics and waiting time
Cicconetti et al. [29] Propose a network resource allocation for distributed quantum computing
base on Weighted Round Robin algorithm
Zhang et al. [204] Proposed a task scheduling method to classify users and tasks and provide
differentiated service opportunities
Weder et al. [192] Proposed an automated quantum hardware selection for quantum work-
flows based on quantum circuit properties
Liu et al. [107] Propose QuCloud for efficient multi-programming in quantum cloud com-
puting, enhancing resource utilization and reducing error rates
Liu et al. [108] Extend QuCloud with QuCloud+, incorporating advanced quantum program
profiling to improve qubit fidelity and reduce SWAP overhead.
Modeling & Nguyen et al. [131] Propose iQuantum toolkit for support the modeling and simulation of
Simulation quantum resource management in cloud-based environments

3.5.1 Quantum Resource Estimation. Suracha et al. [178] proposed QuRE, a Quantum Resource Estimator to quantify
quantum computing resources, including qubit count, execution duration, success probabilities, and gate operations,
tailored to specific quantum tasks. They extended their analysis to incorporate diverse error correction strategies,
assessing how variations in error rates influence the overall resource estimations, thereby enabling more efficient
quantum computing designs. JavadiAbhari et al. [85] developed ScaffCC, a comprehensive framework designed for
the compilation and analysis of quantum circuits, focusing on scalability and the estimation of resources such as
circuit width, depth, gate count, and qubit interactions. This framework enhances hardware-agnostic quantum circuit
implementation, optimizing for both small and large-scale applications by addressing the critical aspects of quantum
circuit complexity and resource allocation. Salm et al. [165] presented the NISQ Analyser as a novel tool designed to
optimize the quantum backend selection process by evaluating the specific requirements of quantum tasks. It assesses
essential parameters, including qubit requirements, circuit depth, and gate complexity, to ensure the most efficient
alignment of quantum algorithms with available quantum computing resources, thereby enhancing the practicality of
quantum computing applications.

3.5.2 Quantum Resource Allocation and Task Scheduling. When designing a comprehensive resource allocation for
the quantum cloud computing paradigm, multiple factors must be considered. In [156], Ravi et al. analyzed multiple
quantum jobs and resource utilization characteristics using IBM Quantum Cloud services for two years. They evaluated
the significance of the execution times, waiting times, and compilation times of quantum circuits, fidelity, error rates,
20 H. Nguyen, P. Krishnan, D. Krishnaswamy, M. Usman, and R. Buyya

and the utilization of quantum machines. This study gave insights into numerous factors affecting quantum task
execution on quantum cloud devices. In the following study [157], they proposed a prediction model to predict the
fidelity of quantum computers and queueing time for each device based on historical data of IBM Quantum computers.
To schedule incoming jobs to an appropriate quantum computer, this work compiles and transpiles the corresponding
quantum circuit for each quantum computer, extracts the key features of the circuit, and maps it with the characteristics
of the machine. Then, using correlation coefficient techniques, the best-suited quantum computer will be selected for
job execution. Although the proposed method, which uses statistical analysis, is straightforward, this work can be
considered the first paper on resource management for quantum cloud computing. Ngoenriang et al. [129] proposed a
two-stage stochastic programming-based resource allocation technique for distributed quantum computing, which aims
to minimize the total deployment cost while maximizing the utilization of quantum resources. This paper considered
multiple uncertainties of the distributed quantum computing model, including quantum task demands, computation
power, and the degradation in qubit fidelity through quantum networks. Similarly, Kaewpuang et al. [87] suggested
another two-stage stochastic qubit allocation for quantum cloud under the uncertainties of quantum circuit requirements
and the expected waiting time. In this study, resource allocation is determined using historical data in the reservation
stage and the actual requirements in the on-demand stage. Focusing on the quantum network aspects, Cicconetti et al.
[29] presented another resource allocation technique for distributed quantum computing. They leveraged the Weighted
Round Robin (WRR) algorithm to design the network resource allocation technique for quantum applications. The key
idea is to pre-calculate the weight of all traffic flows in each quantum application and use the round-robin strategy
to assign network resources. They also proposed a quantum network provisioning simulator for the evaluation and
showed the trade-offs between fairness and time complexity of the network resource allocation algorithm. Zhang et al.
[204] propose a new task scheduling scheme for cloud-based quantum computing platforms, focusing on user and task
classification. This approach aims to reduce waiting times for high-priority users, thereby enhancing their experience
and addressing the challenge of limited access to high-quality quantum computing resources.
Due to the error-prone nature of NISQ devices, only quantum circuits with a limited number of qubits can be precisely
executed. It leads to the common problem of under-utilizing quantum resources as only more qubits are wasted, and
only one circuit can be executed each time. Therefore, parallel processing and multi-programming techniques are
essential for maximizing the resource utilization for quantum cloud computing [135]. Das et al. [35] presented their
studies on quantum multi-programming and proposed several solutions for enabling the multi-programmed NISQ
devices. Specifically, they proposed three methods, including 1) a qubit partitioning method to ensure fairness in qubit
allocation, 2) a Delayed Instruction Scheduling policy to reduce the multi-program interference, and 3) an Adaptive Multi-
Programming to allow flexible switching between single- and multi-programming. Ohkura et al. [137] proposed palloq,
a parallel allocation protocol for quantum circuits, which accelerates the performance of quantum multi-programming
in NISQ devices. They also considered error detection using randomized benchmarking methods. Nguyen et al. [133]
developed a full-stack software framework to enable parallel quantum computing for hybrid quantum workloads. This
framework supports three modes to distribute quantum tasks, including Message Passing Interface (MPI) protocol
and local and cloud-based quantum accelerators, which are built based on nitrogen-vacancy (NV) centers in diamond
at Quantum Brilliance company. Weder et al. [192] proposed an automated quantum hardware selection approach
for quantum workflows, addressing the complexity of selecting suitable quantum hardware based on input data and
quantum circuit properties. This approach involves transforming QuantME workflow models, which are used for
orchestrating various tasks such as pre-processing, quantum circuit execution, and post-processing tasks of one or
multiple quantum algorithms, into native workflow models to select quantum hardware during workflow runtime
Quantum Cloud Computing: A Review, Open Problems, and Future Directions 21

dynamically, considering the limitations of today’s quantum computers. In practice, IBM Quantum uses fair-share
scheduling algorithm2 to ensure fairness in their Open plan quantum cloud service, which is freely public for the
research community. When a new quantum job arrives, it is placed in the waiting queue from all users, and its order to
be executed will be dynamically determined using the fair-share algorithm.
In the domain of quantum cloud resource management, strategic qubit allocation and circuit transpilation are pivotal.
Liu et al. proposed QuCloud [107], a qubit mapping technique to optimize the utilization of quantum resources while
mitigating error rates and fidelity degradation, which is essential for cloud-based quantum computing. By partitioning
physical qubit topologies and introducing the X-SWAP design to minimize SWAP overheads, QuCloud enhances inter-
program interactions. Subsequently, the authors proposed QuCloud+ [108] to refine this approach further, leveraging
advanced quantum program profiling to improve qubit fidelity and reduce SWAP overhead. This development is
particularly notable for its support of both 2D and 3D quantum chips, alongside its flexibility in switching between
single- and multiple-program mappings on demand. Such developments are crucial for effectively managing and
utilizing quantum cloud resources, aligning with the broader objectives of maximizing computational efficiency and
adaptability in quantum cloud platforms.

3.5.3 Simulation Toolkits for Quantum Cloud Resource Management Problems. In the evolving landscape of quantum
cloud computing, where accessibility to physical quantum resources is limited, simulation toolkits like CloudSim [22] in
the classical domain are pivotal for designing and evaluating quantum cloud resource management algorithms. Nguyen
et al. proposed iQuantum [130, 131], a toolkit for modeling and simulating resource scheduling algorithms on the cloud.
This toolkit is particularly beneficial for simulating quantum computing scenarios that integrate cloud-based quantum
resources, focusing on job scheduling and hybrid quantum-classical task orchestration. Furthermore, Passian et al. [142]
proposed a simulator for quantum edge computing in the coming years. This concept highlights the importance of
standardization and the creation of such simulators and toolkits for cloud-based quantum computing, as well as the
extension to edge computing environments.

3.6 Quantum Cloud Security and Privacy

As quantum cloud computing is in its infancy, a limited number of works in the literature focus on its security and
privacy. On the contrary, many studies pay extensive attention to quantum security [27, 106, 163, 190], post-quantum
cryptography [11, 16], and quantum-safe techniques [82].

3.6.1 Security and data privacy threats of quantum cloud computing. In quantum cloud computing, the integration
of quantum services via cloud platforms can introduce several security and privacy challenges. The accessibility of
cloud-based quantum computing services potentially enables adversaries to exploit these resources for unauthorized
access to sensitive data without needing proprietary quantum hardware. Initial attack vectors can target the exploitation
of quantum resources to compromise non-quantum-safe infrastructures or the theft of credentials securing cloud-based
quantum services, enabling service manipulation or compromise [75]. The necessity for secure data transfer channels
in remote quantum computing emphasizes the importance of network authenticity, especially in cloud environments
where physical network characteristics are abstracted [54].
Malicious third-party cloud computers and the vulnerabilities they introduce, such as hacking, data leaks, and
insecure APIs, are well-known threats in the classical domain [172]. As the quantum computing ecosystem expands in

2 https://quantum-computing.ibm.com/lab/docs/iql/manage/systems/queue/
22 H. Nguyen, P. Krishnan, D. Krishnaswamy, M. Usman, and R. Buyya

scope and practicality, an increase in providers, including potentially unreliable third-party vendors, offering quantum
computing as a service is anticipated. This situation presents multiple security challenges. Some emerging providers
might attract customers with the promise of cheaper access to quantum computing resources and reduced waiting
times. However, if the security measures of these services are not rigorously assessed, they could introduce significant
risks. This scenario is similar to the risk of employing untrusted compilers for constructing quantum circuits, which
could potentially expose or compromise proprietary information [75, 164]. Additionally, quantum-specific challenges
such as crosstalk noise present significant security threats, as adversaries can exploit it to interfere with and manipulate
quantum computations on cloud-based platforms [68].
Furthermore, the shared nature of cloud quantum computing resources raises concerns over intellectual property (IP)
security. Quantum computers are susceptible to attacks like fault injection in multi-tenant computing environments.
Compute performance can also be degraded for denial-of-service attacks if third-party calibration services provide
inaccurate error rates of qubits or if the qubits are miscalibrated. Access to trustworthy quantum computing providers
often involves long wait times and high costs, tempting users to opt for more affordable, readily available alternatives
that may compromise security, risking intellectual property theft or tampering with computation results. The rise of
efficient yet unreliable compilation services poses a significant threat to the integrity of quantum circuits by potentially
introducing malicious code [163, 184]. Despite quantum computing’s capacity to address strategically critical problems
involving sensitive data, its security and privacy aspects remain underexplored.

3.6.2 Recent advances in securing and privacy-preserving quantum cloud computing. Advancements in techniques for
securing and ensuring data privacy for quantum cloud computing draw from quantum-specific and traditional cloud
security measures, focusing on robust authentication, visibility, scalability, and efficient certificate management. The
challenge lies in establishing secure, multi-tenant quantum cloud infrastructures that balance scalability with privacy
and security considerations [128]. Innovations in quantum mechanics have led to the proposal of various security
mechanisms, including quantum key distribution [10, 43], secret sharing [40, 73], key agreement [112, 116], direct
communication [195, 206], steganography [153], teleportation [111, 180], sealed-bid auction [114, 115], and quantum
machine learning [110, 113], as well as privacy-preserving strategies for quantum databases [109]. Table 7 summarizes
several representative works on securing and privacy-preserving quantum cloud computing.
Adapting classical security technologies like homomorphic encryption [55] and secure multiparty computation
[143, 159] for quantum resilience is crucial, as conventional encryption might falter against quantum capabilities.
Research into blind quantum computing has aimed at securing quantum circuits, crucial for cloud-based scenarios
where direct access to quantum systems is unavailable [15, 49]. Broadbent et al. [15] proposed a universal blind quantum
computation protocol that enables clients to perform quantum computations on a server in a way that preserves
the privacy of their data and computation, without requiring the client to have quantum computational resources,
marking a significant advancement in the field of quantum computing in its early stage. Fitzsimons and Kashefi [49, 50]
proposed an unconditionally verifiable blind quantum computation protocol, enhancing privacy and verifiability in
client-server quantum computing setups, with significant efficiency improvements and fault-tolerance thresholds,
enabling entangling gates between any logical qubits with minimal overhead. Distributed approaches for protecting
quantum circuits through classical interfaces have been proposed, specifically for prime factorization, relying on shared
entanglement. Huang et al. [76] conducted an experiment demonstrating blind quantum computing for entirely classical
clients, showing that clients without quantum devices can perform computations securely on quantum servers using
entanglement, including tasks like factorization with built-in verification for server honesty and correctness, marking a
Quantum Cloud Computing: A Review, Open Problems, and Future Directions 23

Table 7. Representative works in securing and privacy-preserving quantum cloud computing.

Category Reference Highlight

Introduced a protocol for secure cloud-based quantum computation
Broadbent et al. [15]
with classical clients.
Securing QCC Demonstrated private quantum computation using blind quantum
Fitzsimons et al. [49, 50]
Data computing techniques.
Suggested a distributed approach to secure quantum circuits in
Huang et al. [76]
cloud computing environments
Developed a scheme enhancing privacy and verifiability in quantum
Li et al. [102]
cloud computing based on blind computation
Developed a homomorphic encryption scheme for quantum circuits,
Mahadev [120]
ensuring secure delegation of quantum computations to servers.
Proposed a technique to detect malicious changes in NISQ computer
Acharya et al. [3]
error rates in cloud environments.
Securing QCC
Introduced QEnclave for secure quantum cloud computing, enabling
Platforms Ma et al. [118]
privacy-preserving remote quantum operations via classical controls.
Proposed a heuristics method for trustworthy computing on untrusted
Upadhyay et al. [185]
quantum cloud hardware
Proposed the QuMoS framework to safeguard QML models against
Wang et al. [191]
model-stealing attacks
Phalak et al. [146] Proposed using QuPUFs for authenticating quantum cloud hardware.
Proposed the Ensemble of Diverse Mappings (EDM) method to
Authentication Tannu et al. [182]
counteract the vulnerability of NISQ computers to correlated errors.
and Verification
Presented an empirical study on cryptographic verification on IBM
Chen et al. [28]
quantum cloud computers.
Proposed a cryptographic verification protocol for anti-forging
Yung and Chen [201]
quantum data.
Demonstrated classical algorithms can forge quantum data,
Kahanamoku-Meyer [88]
challenging the protocols’ integrity and verification measures.

crucial step towards secure cloud quantum computing. Additionally, Li et al. [102] introduced a verifiable quantum
cloud computation scheme leveraging blind computation, addressing privacy and verifiability for clients in cloud-based
quantum computing with a novel use of cluster states, enhancing the scheme’s suitability for cloud architectures and
promoting data confidentiality. Mahadev [121] introduced the first leveled fully homomorphic encryption scheme
for quantum circuits, enabling classical clients to delegate quantum computations to a quantum server securely. This
technique ensures that an honest server can perform the computation without revealing any information to a malicious
server. It is constructed from a quantum-secure classical homomorphic encryption scheme based on the problem of
learning with errors, bridging a significant gap in quantum and classical encryption methodologies.
Several works investigated the trustworthiness and security of quantum cloud platforms. Acharya et al. [3] addressed
the reliability challenges in NISQ computers by proposing a method to detect malicious changes in error rates that
could alter quantum circuit outputs. Their lightweight approach involves inserting test points into circuits to monitor
error rates relative to qubit allocations, employing superposition, classical, and un-compute tests for side-channel
analysis, and offering a security enhancement for NISQ computing. Besides, delegated quantum computation (DQC)
services, enabling clients with limited quantum capabilities to delegate calculations to quantum servers, face privacy
challenges. QEnclave [118] introduces a secure, classical-controlled cloud-based quantum hardware for remote quantum
24 H. Nguyen, P. Krishnan, D. Krishnaswamy, M. Usman, and R. Buyya

process execution, bringing classical secure enclave principles to quantum computing and ensuring user privacy. Secure
DQC schemes relying on quantum-safe classical communication and post-quantum cryptography are essential, with
protocols based on quantum-safe trapdoor functions offering novel solutions, despite challenges in server overhead
and the need for secure computation protocols [2, 49, 53, 121]. Upadhyay et al. [185] proposed a heuristic method
for counteracting adversarial tampering and detecting compromised hardware, addressed the challenge of ensuring
trustworthy computing on cloud-based quantum hardware, including those offered by untrusted vendors, by modeling
adversarial tampering and its impact. They propose distributing computation shots across various hardware options to
improve reliability and performance, significantly enhancing computing outcomes for both pure quantum and hybrid
quantum-classical workloads, and introducing an adaptive heuristic to optimize hardware use in real-time. Besides,
the susceptibility of cloud-based quantum machine learning (QML) applications to model-stealing attacks led to the
proposal of the QuMoS framework [191], distributing the QML model across multiple quantum cloud providers to
enhance security, despite the possibility of introducing new challenges for model integrity [169].
Furthermore, authentication and verification of quantum computation in cloud computing environments have
recently gained attention. Phalak et al. [146] explored security concerns in cloud-based quantum computing, proposing
Quantum Physically Unclonable Functions (QuPUF) to ensure trustworthiness and security. Addressing the risk of users
being allocated inferior quality quantum hardware by untrustworthy third parties or due to malicious tampering, they
developed QuPUF variants based on superposition and decoherence, tested on IBM quantum hardware. Their solution
demonstrates the feasibility of using QuPUFs to distinguish between quantum hardware, enhancing user trust in cloud
quantum computing environments. Tannu et al. [182] proposed the Ensemble of Diverse Mappings (EDM) method to
counteract the vulnerability of NISQ computers to correlated errors, improving the reliability of quantum computations.
By diversifying qubit allocations across multiple trials, EDM decreases the likelihood of consistent errors, thereby
enhancing the accuracy of output inference. Their approach demonstrated a significant improvement in inference
quality compared to existing mapping algorithms. Besides, Intellectual property (IP) concerns arise from reversible
quantum circuits and the potential for piracy and reverse engineering attacks. Techniques like extra line augmentation
with quantum multiple-valued decision diagrams (QMDD) [126] and binary-decision diagrams (BDD) [187] offer
protection, though vulnerabilities may still exist due to synthesis traces. The risk of IP infringement escalates with
cloud services’ performance promises and the power of NISQ machines [104]. Additionally, several empirical studies on
cryptographic verification in quantum cloud contexts highlight the fidelity differences between lab and commercial
quantum processors and propose protocols for anti-forging quantum data. Chen et al. [28] explored a cryptographic
verification scheme to ensure the authenticity of quantum computing within cloud services, differentiating between
actual quantum processing and classical simulation. Yung and Cheng [201] enhanced the security of quantum cloud
computing with an anti-forging quantum data verification protocol, extending the Shepherd-Bremner IQP-based model
[170] to safeguard against attacks and ensure outputs are genuinely from quantum hardware. This revised protocol
allows encoding multiple secret strings, significantly increasing resistance to classical hacking and providing a robust
method for estimating correlation functions crucial for verification, marking a significant advancement in cryptographic
verification of quantum computational power. Similarly, Kahanamoku-Meyer [88] exposed vulnerabilities in IQP-based
quantum tests, demonstrating the potential for classical algorithms to forge quantum data and extract secret keys,
challenging the security of quantum computational advantage demonstrations. These advancements underscore the
ongoing need for research in quantum cloud security, addressing both technical and conceptual challenges to safeguard
quantum computations and data privacy in an evolving landscape.
Quantum Cloud Computing: A Review, Open Problems, and Future Directions 25

4 OPEN PROBLEMS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Quantum cloud computing has witnessed substantial progress; however, numerous challenges remain unaddressed,
necessitating further research. This section outlines critical open problems and potential future directions (as depicted
in Figure 3), aiming to advance the capabilities of quantum cloud computing.

Fig. 3. Open problems and future directions on Quantum Cloud Computing

• Distributed and Parallel Quantum Computation: The integration of multiple quantum computing resources
to harness their collective power is essential [36, 67]. However, this direction faces significant challenges that
require extensive effort to address. First, the coherence of quantum states needs to be maintained while
transferring quantum data across different devices. Today’s quantum computers are error-prone [150] due to the
high sensitivity of quantum states, which is easily affected by environmental factors, such as electromagnetic
noise and temperature, so maintaining the qubit quality in individual quantum devices is difficult. The challenge
lies in ensuring the integrity of qubits across potentially vast distances, demanding advancements in quantum
networking and data communication to achieve reliable inter-device connectivity. Besides, the scalability of
the system and the requirement of designing an effective distributed quantum algorithms are challenging
for large distributed quantum systems. This requires innovative approaches to algorithm design that can
navigate the intricacies of distributed quantum computations, optimizing performance across a heterogeneous
network of quantum processors [101]. In addition, parallel quantum processing of multiple quantum tasks
simultaneously on a single quantum computer is still an open problem without an efficient solution devised.
Current quantum computing paradigms struggle to efficiently parallelize tasks due to the quantum decoherence
and error rates associated with simultaneously manipulating multiple qubits. Developing methodologies for
parallel quantum processing that can mitigate interference and maximize the utilization of quantum resources
remains a critical area of research, promising to enhance the computational throughput of quantum systems
significantly. Addressing these challenges is pivotal for realizing the full potential of distributed and parallel
quantum computing [14].
• Quantum Resource Management: Analogous to its classical counterpart, resource management emerges as
a critical issue in the quantum cloud computing landscape, attributed to the diversity of quantum hardware
26 H. Nguyen, P. Krishnan, D. Krishnaswamy, M. Usman, and R. Buyya

technologies. Due to the heterogeneity of different quantum hardware technologies, multiple aspects of the
quantum resource management problem, such as allocation, scheduling, and utilization, must be addressed. It
is essential to develop algorithms that can efficiently allocate and schedule resources across varied quantum
tasks while optimizing their utilization [131, 157]. Quantum computation resources are inherently expensive,
emphasizing the importance of designing efficient and adaptable resource allocation and scheduling algorithms.
The resource utilization must also be optimized while ensuring the reliability of quantum devices to produce
correct computation results. This challenge parallels those encountered in classical cloud computing, yet it is
magnified by the unique complexities of quantum technology. Addressing this challenge is crucial for harnessing
the full potential of quantum cloud computing, necessitating innovative approaches to navigate the intricacies of
quantum resource management and facilitate the growth and application of quantum cloud computing services.
• Quantum Cloud Programming: The advent of quantum cloud computing has poised software engineering at
the brink of significant evolution, offering access to quantum computational resources analogous to classical
infrastructure. However, the emerging field of quantum software development confronts several limitations,
particularly when leveraging cloud-based quantum resources. A primary problem is the lack of a standardized
quantum programming model. Currently, each quantum cloud provider operates on distinct software platforms,
development toolkits, and standards [167]. This absence of uniformity complicates the development of cross-
platform quantum applications, impeding their ability to operate seamlessly across diverse cloud environments
[132]. Additionally, the deployment paradigm for quantum applications diverges significantly from that of
traditional software. Unlike classical applications, which can reside on servers for on-demand invocation,
quantum applications require recompilation and transmission to quantum computers for each execution. This
discrepancy underscores the need for innovative approaches to quantum software lifecycle management,
emphasizing the critical role of standardization and the development of deployment methodologies tailored to
the quantum computing domain.
• Quantum Serverless: Leading companies in quantum computing, such as IBM, have claimed that quantum
serverless is potentially the future of quantum programming [51]. To empower the quantum serverless model
in the NISQ era, some open challenges must be addressed. First, resource orchestration should be optimized
to deal with various heterogeneous backends and the high load of requests from multiple users. Resource
orchestration refers to the collaboration of multiple processes of allocating, scheduling, and monitoring the
usage of quantum and classical resources. This orchestration problem is essential for all cloud-based systems
and is more challenging for serverless quantum computing systems as both quantum and classical resources
are involved. They must be flexibly orchestrated to fit all the task requirements and ensure resource utilization
while minimizing the total cost. Second, supplement techniques, such as quantum circuit knitting [147], should
be developed to enable large-scale quantum circuit execution on multiple NISQ devices. Circuit knitting can
segment a large quantum circuit into smaller, manageable circuits for execution on different devices before
integrating the outcomes, which is a vital area of research. Innovative approaches, including entanglement
forging [42] and circuit cutting [181], are under exploration to address these challenges. These techniques
are essential in overcoming the limitations of NISQ devices, enabling the execution of complex quantum
computations, and advancing the serverless quantum computing model.
• Quantum Cloud for Quantum Machine Learning Applications and QMLOps: In the domain of classical
computing, Machine Learning Operations (MLOps) integrate machine learning workflows with DevOps prac-
tices to enhance the efficiency of ML application development [86, 96]. Similarly, in the quantum computing
Quantum Cloud Computing: A Review, Open Problems, and Future Directions 27

realm, Quantum Machine Learning (QML) has emerged as a promising field, attracting significant interest
from researchers [74]. The design of cloud-based systems tailored for QML applications is essential for their
advancement. Adopting an approach akin to MLOps, termed QMLOps, could significantly streamline the
development and management of QML applications. By applying the principles of MLOps to the quantum
context, QMLOps aims to facilitate the seamless integration, deployment, and operation of QML workflows,
thereby accelerating the maturation of quantum computing technologies and their application in solving
complex computational problems. This convergence of quantum computing and machine learning within cloud
environments underscores the potential for QMLOps to act as a trigger for innovation and efficiency in the
realm of quantum machine learning.
• Quantum Cloud Security: The imperative to secure data and privacy within quantum cloud computing cannot
be exaggerated, especially given quantum computing’s capability to compromise conventional cryptographic
techniques. There is a pressing need to develop security strategies rooted in quantum principles to protect
the quantum cloud ecosystem. This includes a thorough exploration and mitigation of potential quantum-
specific attack vectors. Additionally, Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) [25, 124] emerges as a pivotal research
area in quantum cloud security, necessitating ongoing enhancements to ensure the secure transmission of
encryption keys within cloud infrastructures. Despite progress in formulating attack models and devising
corresponding defensive measures for quantum computing, current strategies only begin to address the breadth
of potential security challenges. Several critical areas require further investigation, such as securing qubit
technologies, quantum hardware and platforms, and preserving data security for quantum cloud applications
[54]. Addressing these aspects of quantum cloud security is vital for advancing the field and ensuring the
integrity and confidentiality of data within quantum computing environments.

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we carried out a comprehensive review of recent advances, open problems, and future directions in
quantum cloud computing. We introduced emerging concepts and models of quantum cloud, such as hybrid classical-
quantum cloud, quantum computing as a service, and quantum serverless. Besides, we summarized representative
studies in each aspect to highlight the importance of combining quantum and cloud computing to accelerate quantum
engineering. We discussed the potential applications of quantum clouds in different areas. We explored key research
problems in quantum clouds, including resource management, distributed computation, and quantum cloud security. We
also highlighted several research challenges and suggested future directions to advance the quantum cloud. Although
there are still challenges to be addressed, quantum cloud computing has the potential to drive innovation and bring
significant benefits to realize the advantage of practical quantum computing. We believe that quantum cloud computing
is a promising strategy to revolutionize how quantum computing is used to solve intractable problems for classical
computing in the coming years. This calls for access to quantum hardware, robust network connectivity, quantum
software tools, security measures, scalability, interoperability, and cost-effectiveness.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Hoa T. Nguyen acknowledges the support from the Science and Technology Scholarship Program for Overseas Study
for Master’s and Doctoral Degrees, Vin University, Vingroup, Vietnam.
28 H. Nguyen, P. Krishnan, D. Krishnaswamy, M. Usman, and R. Buyya

REFERENCES
[1] 1Qcloud. 2024. 1Qloud Optimization Platform - 1QBit. https://1qbit.com/1qloud/. Accessed: 2024-03-07.
[2] Scott Aaronson, Alexandru Cojocaru, Alexandru Gheorghiu, and Elham Kashefi. 2019. Complexity-theoretic limitations on blind delegated
quantum computation. arXiv:1704.08482 [quant-ph]
[3] Nikita Acharya and Samah Mohamed Saeed. 2020. A Lightweight Approach to Detect Malicious/Unexpected Changes in the Error Rates of
NISQ Computers. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (Virtual Event, USA) (ICCAD ’20). Association for
Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 153, 9 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3400302.3415684
[4] Aakash Ahmad, Muhammad Waseem, Peng Liang, Mahdi Fehmideh, Arif Ali Khan, David Georg Reichelt, and Tommi Mikkonen. 2023. Engineering
Software Systems for Quantum Computing as a Service: A Mapping Study. arXiv:2303.14713 [cs.SE]
[5] Zapata AI. [n. d.]. Orquestra Platform — zapata.ai. https://zapata.ai/platform-orquestra/. Accessed 13-12-2023.
[6] AQT. 2024. AQT realizes the first general-purpose Quantum Computer. https://www.aqt.eu/. Accessed: 2024-03-07.
[7] J. M. Arrazola, V. Bergholm, K. Brádler, T. R. Bromley, M. J. Collins, I. Dhand, A. Fumagalli, T. Gerrits, A. Goussev, L. G. Helt, J. Hundal, T. Isacsson,
R. B. Israel, J. Izaac, S. Jahangiri, R. Janik, N. Killoran, S. P. Kumar, J. Lavoie, A. E. Lita, D. H. Mahler, M. Menotti, B. Morrison, S. W. Nam, L.
Neuhaus, H. Y. Qi, N. Quesada, A. Repingon, K. K. Sabapathy, M. Schuld, D. Su, J. Swinarton, A. Száva, K. Tan, P. Tan, V. D. Vaidya, Z. Vernon, Z.
Zabaneh, and Y. Zhang. 2021. Quantum circuits with many photons on a programmable nanophotonic chip. Nature 591, 7848 (mar 2021), 54–60.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03202-1
[8] Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C. Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fernando G.S.L. Brandao,
David A. Buell, Brian Burkett, Yu Chen, Zijun Chen, Ben Chiaro, Roberto Collins, Courtney, Farhi, Fowler, Marissa Giustina, Rob Graff, Guerin,
Harrigan, Alan Ho, Markus Hoffmann, Huang, Isakov, Zhang Jiang, Dvir Kafri, Kechedzhi, Paul V. Klimov, Knysh, Kostritsa, Mike Lindmark,
Erik Lucero, Lyakh, Jarrod R. McClean, Matthew McEwen, Anthony Megrant, Mi, et al. 2019. Quantum supremacy using a programmable
superconducting processor. Nature 574, 7779 (oct 2019), 505–510. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5
[9] Kushal Batra, Zorn, Minerali, and Lane. 2021. Quantum Machine Learning Algorithms for Drug Discovery Applications. Journal of Chemical
Information and Modeling 61, 6 (jun 2021), 2641–2647. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.1c00166
[10] Charles H. Bennett and Gilles Brassard. 2014. Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing. Theoretical Computer Science 560
(2014), 7–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2014.05.025
[11] Daniel J. Bernstein and Tanja Lange. 2017. Post-quantum cryptography. Nature 549, 7671 (sep 2017), 188–194. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23461
[12] S. Blinov, B. Wu, and C. Monroe. 2021. Comparison of Cloud-Based Ion Trap and Superconducting Quantum Computer Architectures.
arXiv:2102.00371 [quant-ph]
[13] Bova, Francesco, Goldfarb, Avi, and Melko, Roger G. 2021. Commercial applications of quantum computing. EPJ Quantum Technol. 8, 1 (2021), 2.
https://doi.org/10.1140/epjqt/s40507-021-00091-1
[14] Keith A. Britt and Travis S. Humble. 2017. High-Performance Computing with Quantum Processing Units. ACM Journal on Emerging Technologies
in Computing Systems 13, 3 (mar 2017), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3007651
[15] Anne Broadbent, Joseph Fitzsimons, and Elham Kashefi. 2009. Universal Blind Quantum Computation. In 2009 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on
Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE, Atlanta, GA, USA, 517–526. https://doi.org/10.1109/focs.2009.36
[16] Johannes A. Buchmann, Butin, and Albrecht Petzoldt. 2016. Post-Quantum Cryptography: State of the Art. In The New Codebreakers, Peter Y. A.
Ryan and Naccache (Eds.). Vol. 9100. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 88–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49301-4_6
[17] Rajkumar Buyya, Satish Narayana Srirama, Giuliano Casale, Rodrigo Calheiros, Yogesh Simmhan, Blesson Varghese, Erol Gelenbe, Bahman Javadi,
Luis Miguel Vaquero, Marco A. S. Netto, Adel Nadjaran Toosi, Maria Alejandra Rodriguez, Ignacio M. Llorente, Sabrina De Capitani Di Vimercati,
Pierangela Samarati, Dejan Milojicic, Carlos Varela, Rami Bahsoon, Marcos Dias De Assuncao, Omer Rana, Wanlei Zhou, Hai Jin, Wolfgang
Gentzsch, Albert Y. Zomaya, and Haiying Shen. 2018. A Manifesto for Future Generation Cloud Computing: Research Directions for the Next
Decade. ACM Comput. Surv. 51, 5, Article 105 (nov 2018), 38 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3241737
[18] Rajkumar Buyya, Chee Shin Yeo, Srikumar Venugopal, James Broberg, and Ivona Brandic. 2009. Cloud computing and emerging IT platforms:
Vision, hype, and reality for delivering computing as the 5th utility. Future Generation Computer Systems 25, 6 (2009), 599–616. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.future.2008.12.001
[19] Angela Sara Cacciapuoti, Caleffi, Cataliotti, and Giuseppe Bianchi. 2020. Quantum Internet: Networking Challenges in Distributed Quantum
Computing. IEEE Network 34, 1 (2020), 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1109/MNET.001.1900092
[20] Marcello Caleffi, Amoretti, Cuomo, and Manzalini. 2022. Distributed Quantum Computing: a Survey. http://arxiv.org/abs/2212.10609
arXiv:2212.10609 [quant-ph].
[21] Marcello Caleffi, Angela Sara Cacciapuoti, and Giuseppe Bianchi. 2018. Quantum Internet: From Communication to Distributed Computing!. In
Proceedings of the 5th ACM International Conference on Nanoscale Computing and Communication (Reykjavik, Iceland) (NANOCOM ’18). Association
for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 3, 4 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3233188.3233224
[22] Rodrigo N. Calheiros, Rajiv Ranjan, Anton Beloglazov, César A. F. De Rose, and Rajkumar Buyya. 2011. CloudSim: a toolkit for modeling and
simulation of cloud computing environments and evaluation of resource provisioning algorithms. Software: Practice and Experience 41, 1 (2011),
23–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.995
Quantum Cloud Computing: A Review, Open Problems, and Future Directions 29

[23] Earl T. Campbell. 2014. Enhanced Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computing in d-Level Systems. Physical Review Letters 113, 23 (Dec 2014). https:
//doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.113.230501
[24] Y. Cao, J. Romero, and A. Aspuru-Guzik. 2018. Potential of quantum computing for drug discovery. IBM Journal of Research and Development 62, 6
(nov 2018), 6:1–6:20. https://doi.org/10.1147/JRD.2018.2888987
[25] Yuan Cao, Yongli Zhao, Qin Wang, Jie Zhang, and Ng. 2022. The Evolution of Quantum Key Distribution Networks: On the Road to the Qinternet.
IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 24, 2 (2022), 839–894. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2022.3144219
[26] Andre R. R. Carvalho, Harrison Ball, Michael J. Biercuk, Michael R. Hush, and Felix Thomsen. 2021. Error-Robust Quantum Logic Optimization
Using a Cloud Quantum Computer Interface. Physical Review Applied 15, 6 (jun 2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevapplied.15.064054
[27] Huimin Chen, Hengyue Jia, Xia Wu, Xiuli Wang, and Maoning Wang. 2021. Quantum Token for Network Authentication. In 2021 IEEE International
Conference on Web Services (ICWS). IEEE, Chicago, IL, USA, 688–692. https://doi.org/10.1109/icws53863.2021.00095
[28] Xi Chen, Bin Cheng, Zhaokai Li, Xinfang Nie, Nengkun Yu, Man-Hong Yung, and Xinhua Peng. 2021. Experimental cryptographic verification for
near-term quantum cloud computing. Science Bulletin 66, 1 (jan 2021), 23–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2020.08.013
[29] Claudio Cicconetti, Marco Conti, and Andrea Passarella. 2022. Resource Allocation in Quantum Networks for Distributed Quantum Com-
puting. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Smart Computing (SMARTCOMP). IEEE, Helsinki, Finland, 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1109/
SMARTCOMP55677.2022.00032
[30] Asia Citynow. 2023. Enabling Serverless Quantum Computing with QuaO. https://citynow.asia/press/release/Enabling-Serverless-Quantum-
Computing-with-QuaO
[31] Qemist Cloud. 2024. QEMIST Cloud – Good Chemistry Co. https://goodchemistry.com/qemist-cloud/. Accessed: 2024-03-07.
[32] Atom Computing. 2024. Atom Computing. https://atom-computing.com/. Accessed: 2024-03-07.
[33] Andrew W. Cross, Lev S. Bishop, Sarah Sheldon, Paul D. Nation, and Jay M. Gambetta. 2019. Validating quantum computers using randomized
model circuits. Physical Review A 100, 3 (sep 2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.100.032328
[34] Daniele Cuomo and Caleffi. 2020. Towards a distributed quantum computing ecosystem. IET Quantum Communication 1, 1 (jul 2020), 3–8.
https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-qtc.2020.0002
[35] Poulami Das, Swamit S. Tannu, Prashant J. Nair, and Moinuddin Qureshi. 2019. A Case for Multi-Programming Quantum Computers. In Proceedings
of the 52nd Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (Columbus, OH, USA) (MICRO ’52). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1145/3352460.3358287
[36] Zohreh Davarzani, Mariam Zomorodi, and Mahboobeh Houshmand. 2022. A hierarchical approach for building distributed quantum systems.
Scientific Reports 12, 1 (sep 2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18989-w
[37] Nathalie P. de Leon, Kohei M. Itoh, Dohun Kim, Karan K. Mehta, Tracy E. Northup, Hanhee Paik, B. S. Palmer, N. Samarth, Sorawis Sangtawesin,
and D. W. Steuerman. 2021. Materials challenges and opportunities for quantum computing hardware. Science 372, 6539 (apr 2021). https:
//doi.org/10.1126/science.abb2823
[38] Manuel De Stefano, Di Nucci, and Taibi. 2022. Towards Quantum-algorithms-as-a-service. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on
Quantum Programming for Software Engineering. ACM, Singapore, 7–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3549036.3562056
[39] Simon J. Devitt. 2016. Performing quantum computing experiments in the cloud. Physical Review A 94, 3 (2016), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1103/
PhysRevA.94.032329
[40] Zhao Dou. 2019. Rational Non-Hierarchical Quantum State Sharing Protocol. Computers, Materials & Continua 58, 2 (2019), 335–347. https:
//doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2019.04159
[41] Patrick Dreher and Madhuvanti Ramasami. 2019. Prototype Container-Based Platform for Extreme Quantum Computing Algorithm Development.
In 2019 IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Conference (HPEC). IEEE, Waltham, MA, USA, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/HPEC.2019.8916430
[42] Andrew Eddins, Motta, Bravyi, and Hadfield. 2022. Doubling the Size of Quantum Simulators by Entanglement Forging. PRX Quantum 3, 1 (jan
2022), 010309. https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.010309
[43] Artur K. Ekert. 1991. Quantum cryptography based on Bell’s theorem. Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 (Aug 1991), 661–663. Issue 6. https://doi.org/10.1103/
PhysRevLett.67.661
[44] Abir EL Azzaoui and Sharma. 2022. Blockchain-based delegated Quantum Cloud architecture for medical big data security. Journal of Network and
Computer Applications 198 (feb 2022), 103304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2021.103304
[45] Samih Fadli, Bharat S Rawal, and Andrew Mentges. 2023. Hybrid Quantum Machine learning using Quantum Integrated Cloud Architecture
(QICA). In 2023 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC) (Honolulu, HI, USA). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.
1109/ICNC57223.2023.10074394
[46] Kun Fang, Jingtian Zhao, Xiufan Li, Yifei Li, and Runyao Duan. 2023. Quantum NETwork: from theory to practice. Science China Information
Sciences 66, 8 (aug 2023), 180509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-023-3773-4
[47] Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. 2014. A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm. arXiv:1411.4028 [quant-ph]
[48] I. Faro, I. Sitdikov, D. Valinas, F. Fernandez, C. Codella, and J. Glick. 2023. Middleware for Quantum: An orchestration of hybrid quantum-
classical systems. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Software (QSW). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1109/QSW59989.2023.00011
[49] Joseph F Fitzsimons. 2017. Private quantum computation: an introduction to blind quantum computing and related protocols. npj Quantum
Information 3, 1 (2017), 23. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-017-0025-3
30 H. Nguyen, P. Krishnan, D. Krishnaswamy, M. Usman, and R. Buyya

[50] Joseph F Fitzsimons and Elham Kashefi. 2017. Unconditionally verifiable blind quantum computation. Physical Review A 96, 1 (2017), 012303.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.96.012303
[51] Jay Gambetta. 2020. IBM’s roadmap for scaling quantum technology. https://research.ibm.com/blog/ibm-quantum-roadmap
[52] Jose Garcia-Alonso, Rojo, Moguel, and Juan Manuel Murillo. 2022. Quantum Software as a Service Through a Quantum API Gateway. IEEE Internet
Computing 26, 1 (2022), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2021.3132688
[53] Alexandru Gheorghiu, Theodoros Kapourniotis, and Elham Kashefi. 2019. Verification of quantum computation: An overview of existing approaches.
Theory of computing systems 63 (2019), 715–808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00224-018-9872-3
[54] Swaroop Ghosh, Suryansh Upadhyay, and Abdullah Ash Saki. 2023. A Primer on Security of Quantum Computing. arXiv:2305.02505 [quant-ph]
[55] Ran Gilad-Bachrach, Nathan Dowlin, Kim Laine, Kristin Lauter, Michael Naehrig, and John Wernsing. 2016. CryptoNets: Applying Neural
Networks to Encrypted Data with High Throughput and Accuracy. In Proceedings of The 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning
(Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 48), Maria Florina Balcan and Kilian Q. Weinberger (Eds.). PMLR, New York, USA, 201–210.
https://doi.org/10.5555/3045390.3045413
[56] Sukhpal Singh Gill. 2021. Quantum and blockchain based Serverless edge computing: A vision, model, new trends and future directions. Internet
Technology Letters n/a, n/a (2021), e275. https://doi.org/10.1002/itl2.275
[57] Ricardo Gobato. 2017. Calculations Using Quantum Chemistry for Inorganic Molecule Simulation BeLi<sub>2</sub>SeSi. Science
Journal of Analytical Chemistry 5, 5 (2017), 76. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjac.20170505.13
[58] R. Berganza Gomez, C. O Meara, G. Cortiana, C. B. Mendl, and J. Bernabe-Moreno. 2022. Towards AutoQML: A Cloud-Based Automated Circuit
Architecture Search Framework. In 2022 IEEE 19th International Conference on Software Architecture Companion (ICSA-C). IEEE Computer Society,
Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSA-C54293.2022.00033
[59] Changqing Gong, Zhaoyang Dong, and Gani. 2021. Quantum k-means algorithm based on trusted server in quantum cloud computing. Quantum
Information Processing 20, 4 (apr 2021), 130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-021-03071-7
[60] Changqing Gong, Juan Du, Zhaoyang Dong, Zhenzhou Guo, Abdullah Gani, Liang Zhao, and Han Qi. 2020. Grover algorithm-based quantum
homomorphic encryption ciphertext retrieval scheme in quantum cloud computing. Quantum Inf. Process. 19, 3 (mar 2020). https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11128-020-2603-0
[61] Constantin Gonzalez. 2021. Cloud based QC with Amazon Braket. Digitale Welt 5, 2 (apr 2021), 14–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42354-021-0330-z
[62] Google. 2024. Google Quantum AI. https://quantumai.google/. Accessed: 2024-03-08.
[63] M. Grossi, L. Crippa, A. Aita, G. Bartoli, V. Sammarco, E. Picca, N. Said, F. Tramonto, and F. Mattei. 2021. A Serverless Cloud Integration For
Quantum Computing. arXiv:2107.02007 [cs.ET]
[64] Lov K. Grover. 1996. A Fast Quantum Mechanical Algorithm for Database Search. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium
on Theory of Computing (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA) (STOC ’96). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 212–219.
https://doi.org/10.1145/237814.237866
[65] Gian Giacomo Guerreschi, Justin Hogaboam, Fabio Baruffa, and Nicolas P D Sawaya. 2020. Intel Quantum Simulator: a cloud-ready high-performance
simulator of quantum circuits. Quantum Science and Technology 5, 3 (may 2020), 034007. https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/ab8505
[66] Laszlo Gyongyosi and Sandor Imre. 2019. A Survey on quantum computing technology. Computer Science Review 31 (feb 2019), 51–71. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2018.11.002
[67] Laszlo Gyongyosi and Sandor Imre. 2021. Scalable distributed gate-model quantum computers. Scientific Reports 11, 1 (feb 2021). https:
//doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-76728-5
[68] Benjamin Harper, Behnam Tonekaboni, Bahar Goldozian, Martin Sevior, and Muhammad Usman. 2024. Crosstalk Attacks and Defence in a Shared
Quantum Computing Environment. arXiv:2402.02753 [quant-ph]
[69] Vikas Hassija, Vinay Chamola, Adit Goyal, Salil S. Kanhere, and Nadra Guizani. 2020. Forthcoming applications of quantum computing: peeking
into the future. IET Quantum Communication 1, 2 (nov 2020), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-qtc.2020.0026
[70] Dylan Herman, Cody Googin, Xiaoyuan Liu, Yue Sun, Alexey Galda, Ilya Safro, Marco Pistoia, and Yuri Alexeev. 2023. Quantum computing for
finance. Nature Reviews Physics 5, 8 (jul 2023), 450–465. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-023-00603-1
[71] Jose Luis Hevia and Peterssen. 2021. QuantumPath : A quantum software development platform. Software: Practice and Experience 2021, December
(dec 2021), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.3064
[72] Mohamed Hibat-Allah, Marta Mauri, Juan Carrasquilla, and Alejandro Perdomo-Ortiz. 2023. A Framework for Demonstrating Practical Quantum
Advantage: Racing Quantum against Classical Generative Models. arXiv:2303.15626 [quant-ph]
[73] Mark Hillery, Vladimír Bužek, and André Berthiaume. 1999. Quantum secret sharing. Phys. Rev. A 59 (Mar 1999), 1829–1834. Issue 3. https:
//doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.59.1829
[74] Essam H. Houssein, Zainab Abohashima, Mohamed Elhoseny, and Waleed M. Mohamed. 2022. Machine learning in the quantum realm: The
state-of-the-art, challenges, and future vision. Expert Systems with Applications 194 (may 2022), 116512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.116512
[75] Barbora Hrda and Sascha Wessel. 2023. Confidential Quantum Computing. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Availability,
Reliability and Security (ARES 2023). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3600160.3604982
[76] He-Liang Huang, Qi Zhao, Xiongfeng Ma, Chang Liu, Zu-En Su, Xi-Lin Wang, Li Li, Nai-Le Liu, Sanders, et al. 2017. Experimental blind quantum
computing for a classical client. Physical review letters 119, 5 (2017), 050503. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.050503
Quantum Cloud Computing: A Review, Open Problems, and Future Directions 31

[77] Leilei Huang, Hongyi Zhou, and Feng. 2021. Quantum random number cloud platform. npj Quantum Information 7, 1 (dec 2021), 107. https:
//doi.org/10.1038/s41534-021-00442-x
[78] IBM. 2023. IBM Quantum Computing Services. https://quantum-computing.ibm.com/
[79] IBM. 2024. IBM Cloud. https://www.ibm.com/cloud. Accessed: 2024-03-08.
[80] IBM. 2024. IBM Quantum Roadmap 2033. https://www.ibm.com/quantum/blog/quantum-roadmap-2033. Accessed: 2024-03-08.
[81] IBM Quantum. 2022. IBM Quantum Development Roadmap 2022. https://www.ibm.com/quantum/roadmap
[82] Zainab Iftikhar and Iftikhar. 2021. Quantum Safe Cloud Computing Using Hash-based Digital Signatures. In 2021 26th International Conference on
Automation and Computing (ICAC). IEEE, Portsmouth, United Kingdom, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.23919/ICAC50006.2021.9594228
[83] Jessica Illiano, Caleffi, and Angela Sara Cacciapuoti. 2022. Quantum Internet protocol stack: A comprehensive survey. Computer Networks 213 (aug
2022), 109092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2022.109092
[84] IonQ. 2022. IonQ Cloud Service. https://ionq.com/
[85] Ali JavadiAbhari, Patil, Jeff Heckey, Lvov, and Margaret Martonosi. 2014. ScaffCC: a framework for compilation and analysis of quantum computing
programs. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Computing Frontiers. ACM, Cagliari Italy, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/2597917.2597939
[86] Meenu Mary John, Helena Holmström Olsson, and Jan Bosch. 2021. Towards MLOps: A Framework and Maturity Model. In 2021 47th Euromicro
Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA). 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA53835.2021.00050
[87] Rakpong Kaewpuang, Minrui Xu, Niyato, Zehui Xiong, and Jiawen Kang. 2022. Stochastic Qubit Resource Allocation for Quantum Cloud
Computing. (oct 2022). http://arxiv.org/abs/2210.12343
[88] Gregory D. Kahanamoku-Meyer. 2023. Forging quantum data: classically defeating an IQP-based quantum test. Quantum 7 (sep 2023), 1107.
https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2023-09-11-1107
[89] Mustafa Kaiiali, Sakir Sezer, and Ayesha Khalid. 2019. Cloud computing in the quantum era. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Communications and
Network Security (CNS), Vol. 2019-Janua. IEEE, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/CNS44998.2019.8952589
[90] Abhinav Kandala, Antonio Mezzacapo, Kristan Temme, Maika Takita, Markus Brink, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta. 2017. Hardware-efficient
variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets. Nature 549, 7671 (sep 2017), 242–246. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nature23879
[91] Peter J. Karalekas, Tezak, Ryan, and Robert S. Smith. 2020. A quantum-classical cloud platform optimized for variational hybrid algorithms.
Quantum Science and Technology 5, 2 (2020), 0–13. https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/ab7559
[92] Arif Ali Khan, Aakash Ahmad, Muhammad Waseem, Peng Liang, Mahdi Fahmideh, Tommi Mikkonen, and Pekka Abrahamsson. 2023. Software
architecture for quantum computing systems – A systematic review. Journal of Systems and Software 201 (2023), 111682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jss.2023.111682
[93] Youngseok Kim, Andrew Eddins, Sajant Anand, Ken Xuan Wei, Ewout van den Berg, Sami Rosenblatt, Hasan Nayfeh, Yantao Wu, Michael Zaletel,
Kristan Temme, and Abhinav Kandala. 2023. Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance. Nature 618, 7965 (jun 2023),
500–505. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06096-3
[94] Gary Kochenberger, Jin-Kao Hao, Fred Glover, Mark Lewis, Zhipeng Lü, Haibo Wang, and Yang Wang. 2014. The unconstrained binary quadratic
programming problem: a survey. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization 28, 1 (apr 2014), 58–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10878-014-9734-0
[95] P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver. 2019. A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits.
Applied Physics Reviews 6 (JUN 2019), Not available. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5089550
[96] Dominik Kreuzberger, Niklas Kühl, and Sebastian Hirschl. 2023. Machine Learning Operations (MLOps): Overview, Definition, and Architecture.
IEEE Access 11 (2023), 31866–31879. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3262138
[97] Rajalakshmi Krishnamurthi and Bhatt. 2022. A Comprehensive Overview of Quantum Internet: Architecture, Protocol and Challenges. In
Quantum and Blockchain for Modern Computing Systems: Vision and Advancements. Vol. 133. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 223–247.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04613-1_8
[98] Vaishnavi Kumar and Rayappan. 2022. Quantum true random number generation on IBM’s cloud platform. Journal of King Saud University -
Computer and Information Sciences 34, 8 (sep 2022), 6453–6465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2022.01.015
[99] Mark Lewis and Fred Glover. 2017. Quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem preprocessing: Theory and empirical analysis. Networks
70, 2 (jun 2017), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/net.21751
[100] Frank Leymann, Barzen, Vietz, and Karoline Wild. 2020. Quantum in the Cloud: Application Potentials and Research Opportunities. In Proceedings
of the 10th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Services Science. SCITEPRESS - Science and Technology Publications, 9–24. https:
//doi.org/10.5220/0009819800090024
[101] Gushu Li, Anbang Wu, Yunong Shi, Ali Javadi-Abhari, Yufei Ding, and Yuan Xie. 2021. On the Co-Design of Quantum Software and Hardware.
In Proceedings of the Eight Annual ACM International Conference on Nanoscale Computing and Communication (NANOCOM ’21). ACM. https:
//doi.org/10.1145/3477206.3477464
[102] Jing Li, Yang Zhao, Yubo Yang, and Yongjun Lin. 2020. Verifiable Quantum Cloud Computation Scheme Based on Blind Computation. IEEE Access
8 (2020), 56921–56926. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2982090
[103] Yuanhao Li, Yangyang Fei, Wang, Hong Wang, and Duan. 2021. Quantum random number generator using a cloud superconducting quantum
computer based on source-independent protocol. Scientific Reports 11, 1 (dec 2021), 23873. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-03286-9
32 H. Nguyen, P. Krishnan, D. Krishnaswamy, M. Usman, and R. Buyya

[104] Nimisha Limaye, Muhammad Yasin, and Ozgur Sinanoglu. 2019. Revisiting logic locking for reversible computing. In 2019 IEEE European Test
Symposium (ETS). IEEE, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ETS.2019.8791550
[105] Claudia Linnhoff-Popien. 2020. PlanQK – Quantum Computing Meets Artificial Intelligence: How to make an ambitious idea reality. Digitale Welt
4, 2 (apr 2020), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42354-020-0257-9
[106] Victoria Lipinska and Ribeiro. 2020. Secure multiparty quantum computation with few qubits. Physical Review A 102, 2 (2020), 1–15. https:
//doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.102.022405
[107] Lei Liu and Xinglei Dou. 2021. QuCloud: A New Qubit Mapping Mechanism for Multi-programming Quantum Computing in Cloud Environment.
In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA). Seoul, Korea (South), 167–178.
https://doi.org/10.1109/HPCA51647.2021.00024
[108] Lei Liu and Xinglei Dou. 2023. QuCloud+: A Holistic Qubit Mapping Scheme for Single/Multi-Programming on 2D/3D NISQ Quantum Computers.
ACM Trans. Archit. Code Optim. (nov 2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/3631525
[109] Wenjie Liu, Peipei Gao, Zhihao Liu, Hanwu Chen, Maojun Zhang, et al. 2019. A quantum-based database query scheme for privacy preservation in
cloud environment. Security and Communication Networks 2019 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4923590
[110] Wenjie Liu, Peipei Gao, Yuxiang Wang, Wenbin Yu, and Maojun Zhang. 2019. A unitary weights based one-iteration quantum perceptron algorithm
for non-ideal training sets. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 36854–36865. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2896316
[111] Wen-Jie Liu, Zheng-Fei Chen, Chao Liu, and Yu Zheng. 2015. Improved deterministic N-to-one joint remote preparation of an arbitrary qubit via
EPR pairs. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 54 (2015), 472–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-014-2241-3
[112] Wen-Jie Liu, Zhen-Yu Chen, Sai Ji, Hai-Bin Wang, and Jun Zhang. 2017. Multi-party Semi-quantum Key Agreement with Delegating Quantum
Computation. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 56, 10 (jul 2017), 3164–3174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-017-3484-6
[113] Wen-Jie Liu, Pei-Pei Gao, Wen-Bin Yu, Zhi-Guo Qu, and Ching-Nung Yang. 2018. Quantum Relief algorithm. Quantum Information Processing 17
(Sep 2018), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-018-2048-x
[114] Wen-Jie Liu, Fang Wang, Sai Ji, Zhi-Guo Qu, and Xiao-Jun Wang. 2014. Attacks and improvement of quantum sealed-bid auction with EPR pairs.
Communications in Theoretical Physics 61, 6 (2014), 686. https://doi.org/10.1088/0253-6102/61/6/05
[115] Wen-Jie Liu, Hai-Bin Wang, Gong-Lin Yuan, Yong Xu, Zhen-Yu Chen, Xing-Xing An, Fu-Gao Ji, and Gnim Tchalim Gnitou. 2016. Multiparty quantum
sealed-bid auction using single photons as message carrier. Quantum Information Processing 15 (2016), 869–879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-
015-1202-y
[116] Wen-Jie Liu, Yong Xu, Ching-Nung Yang, Pei-Pei Gao, and Wen-Bin Yu. 2017. An Efficient and Secure Arbitrary N-Party Quantum Key Agreement
Protocol Using Bell States. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 57, 1 (sep 2017), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-017-3553-x
[117] Seng W. Loke. 2022. From Distributed Quantum Computing to Quantum Internet Computing: an Overview. http://arxiv.org/abs/2208.10127
[118] Yao Ma, Elham Kashefi, Myrto Arapinis, Kaushik Chakraborty, and Marc Kaplan. 2022. QEnclave-A practical solution for secure quantum cloud
computing. npj Quantum Information 8, 1 (2022), 128. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-022-00612-5
[119] Alicia B. Magann, Grace, and Mohan Sarovar. 2021. Digital quantum simulation of molecular dynamics and control. Physical Review Research 3, 2
(jun 2021), 023165. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.023165
[120] Urmila Mahadev. 2018. Classical Homomorphic Encryption for Quantum Circuits. (2018), 332–338. https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2018.00039
[121] Urmila Mahadev. 2018. Classical verification of quantum computations. In 2018 IEEE 59th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science
(FOCS). IEEE, 259–267. https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2018.00033
[122] Anupama Mampage, Shanika Karunasekera, and Rajkumar Buyya. 2022. A Holistic View on Resource Management in Serverless Computing
Environments: Taxonomy and Future Directions. ACM Comput. Surv. 54, 11s, Article 222 (sep 2022), 36 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3510412
[123] Fabio Valerio Massoli, Lucia Vadicamo, Giuseppe Amato, and Fabrizio Falchi. 2022. A Leap among Quantum Computing and Quantum Neural
Networks: A Survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 55, 5, Article 98 (dec 2022), 37 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3529756
[124] Miralem Mehic, Marcin Niemiec, Rass, Momtchil Peev, Aguado, Schauer, and Pacher. 2020. Quantum Key Distribution: A Networking Perspective.
Comput. Surveys 53, 5 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3402192
[125] Microsoft. 2023. Azure Quantum. https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/quantum
[126] D.M. Miller and M.A. Thornton. 2006. QMDD: A Decision Diagram Structure for Reversible and Quantum Circuits. In 36th International Symposium
on Multiple-Valued Logic (ISMVL’06). 30–30. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMVL.2006.35
[127] Enrique Moguel, Javier Rojo, Valencia, and Garcia-Alonso. 2022. Quantum service-oriented computing: current landscape and challenges. Software
Quality Journal 0123456789 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-022-09589-y
[128] Reza Nejabati, Rui Wang, and Dimitra Simeonidou. 2022. Dynamic Quantum Network: from Quantum Data Centre to Quantum Cloud Computing,
In Optical Fiber Communication Conference (OFC) 2022. Optical Fiber Communication Conference (OFC) 2022, Th3D.1. https://doi.org/10.1364/
OFC.2022.Th3D.1
[129] Napat Ngoenriang, Xu, Niyato, Xuemin, and Shen. 2022. Optimal Stochastic Resource Allocation for Distributed Quantum Computing. (sep 2022).
http://arxiv.org/abs/2210.02886
[130] Hoa T. Nguyen, Muhammad Usman, and Rajkumar Buyya. 2023. iQuantum: A Case for Modeling and Simulation of Quantum Computing
Environments. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Software (QSW). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 21–30.
https://doi.org/10.1109/QSW59989.2023.00013
Quantum Cloud Computing: A Review, Open Problems, and Future Directions 33

[131] Hoa T. Nguyen, Muhammad Usman, and Rajkumar Buyya. 2024. iQuantum: A toolkit for modeling and simulation of quantum computing
environments. Software: Practice and Experience (2024). https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.3331
[132] Hoa T. Nguyen, Muhammad Usman, and Rajkumar Buyya. 2024. QFaaS: A Serverless Function-as-a-Service framework for Quantum computing.
Future Generation Computer Systems 154 (May 2024), 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2024.01.018
[133] Thien Nguyen, Daanish Arya, Doherty, Kuhlmann, and Scott. 2022. Software for Massively Parallel Quantum Computing. http://arxiv.org/abs/
2211.13355
[134] Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. 2012. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.
1017/CBO9780511976667
[135] Siyuan Niu and Aida Todri-Sanial. 2022. How Parallel Circuit Execution Can Be Useful for NISQ Computing?. In 2022 Design, Automation & Test in
Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE). IEEE, Helsinki, Finland, 1065–1070. https://doi.org/10.23919/DATE54114.2022.9774512
[136] OCQ. 2024. OxfordQuantumCircuits. https://oxfordquantumcircuits.com/. Accessed: 2024-03-07.
[137] Yasuhiro Ohkura and Satoh. 2022. Simultaneous Execution of Quantum Circuits on Current and Near-Future NISQ Systems. IEEE Transactions on
Quantum Engineering 3 (2022), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/TQE.2022.3164716
[138] P. J. J. O’Malley, R. Babbush, I. D. Kivlichan, Romero, R. Barends, J. Kelly, P. Roushan, A. Tranter, N. Ding, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, Chiaro,
A. G. Fowler, E. Jeffrey, E. Lucero, A. Megrant, J. Y. Mutus, M. Neeley, C. Neill, C. Quintana, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White,
Coveney, H. Neven, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. M. Martinis. 2016. Scalable Quantum Simulation of Molecular Energies. Phys. Rev. X 6 (Jul 2016),
031007. Issue 3. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.6.031007
[139] Wesley O’Quinn and Shiwen Mao. 2020. Quantum machine learning: Recent advances and outlook. IEEE Wireless Communications 27, 3 (jun 2020),
126–131. https://doi.org/10.1109/MWC.001.1900341
[140] Roman Orus, Samuel Mugel, and Enrique Lizaso. 2019. Quantum computing for finance: Overview and prospects. Reviews in Physics 4 (nov 2019),
100028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.revip.2019.100028
[141] Pasqal. 2024. Programmable Atomic Arrays - PASQAL. https://www.pasqal.com/. Accessed: 2024-03-07.
[142] Ali Passian, Gilles Buchs, Christopher M. Seck, Alberto M. Marino, and Nicholas A. Peters. 2022. The Concept of a Quantum Edge Simulator: Edge
Computing and Sensing in the Quantum Era. Sensors 23, 1 (dec 2022), 115. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23010115
[143] Hongwu Peng, Shanglin Zhou, Yukui Luo, and OTHERS. 2023. RRNet: Towards ReLU-Reduced Neural Network for Two-party Computation Based
Private Inference. (2023). arXiv:2302.02292
[144] Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod McClean, Peter Shadbolt, Man-Hong Yung, Xiao-Qi Zhou, Peter J. Love, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L. O’Brien. 2014.
A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nature Communications 5, 1 (jul 2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5213
[145] Tobias Pfandzelter, Aditya Dhakal, Frachtenberg, Darel Emmot, Ninad Hogade, Rolando Pablo Hong Enriquez, Gourav Rattihalli, David Bermbach,
and Dejan Milojicic. 2023. Kernel-as-a-Service: A Serverless Programming Model for Heterogeneous Hardware Accelerators. In Proceedings of the
24th International Middleware Conference (Bologna, Italy) (Middleware ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 192–206.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3590140.3629115
[146] Koustubh Phalak, Abdullah Ash-Saki, Mahabubul Alam, Rasit Onur Topaloglu, and Swaroop Ghosh. 2021. Quantum PUF for Security and Trust in
Quantum Computing. IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and Systems 11 (JUN 2021), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1109/jetcas.
2021.3077024
[147] Christophe Piveteau and David Sutter. 2023. Circuit knitting with classical communication. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory (2023), 1–1.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2023.3310797
[148] Jarryd J. Pla, Kuan Y. Tan, Juan P. Dehollain, Wee H. Lim, John J. L. Morton, David N. Jamieson, Andrew S. Dzurak, and Andrea Morello. 2012. A
single-atom electron spin qubit in silicon. Nature 489, 7417 (sep 2012), 541–545. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11449
[149] Gabriel Popkin. 2017. Quantum computer simulates largest molecule yet, sparking hope of future drug discoveries. Science (SEP 2017). https:
//doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9503
[150] John Preskill. 2018. Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum 2 (aug 2018), 79. https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79
[151] QCI. [n. d.]. Dirac-3 - Quantum Computing Inc. https://quantumcomputinginc.com/offerings/quantum-computing/dirac-3. Accessed: 2024-03-20.
[152] Xia qin Fang and Run hua Shi. 2023. Cloud-assisted quantum primitive protocols and applications. Physica Scripta 98, 9 (aug 2023), 095114.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/acf171
[153] Zhiguo Qu, Tiancheng Zhu, Jinwei Wang, and Xiaojun Wang. 2018. A Novel Quantum Stegonagraphy Based on Brown States. Computers, Materials
& Continua 56, 1 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3970/cmc.2018.02215
[154] Quantinuum. 2022. Quantinuum Cloud Service. https://www.quantinuum.com/
[155] QuEra. 2024. Quantum Computing with Neutral Atoms - QuEra. https://www.quera.com/. Accessed: 2024-03-07.
[156] G. Ravi, K. N. Smith, P. Gokhale, and F. T. Chong. 2021. Quantum Computing in the Cloud: Analyzing job and machine characteristics. In
2021 IEEE International Symposium on Workload Characterization (IISWC). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 39–50. https:
//doi.org/10.1109/IISWC53511.2021.00015
[157] Gokul Subramanian Ravi, Smith, and Frederic T. Chong. 2021. Adaptive job and resource management for the growing quantum cloud. In 2021
IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE). IEEE, Broomfield, CO, USA, 301–312. https://doi.org/10.1109/
QCE52317.2021.00047
34 H. Nguyen, P. Krishnan, D. Krishnaswamy, M. Usman, and R. Buyya

[158] Salonik Resch and Ulya R. Karpuzcu. 2021. Benchmarking Quantum Computers and the Impact of Quantum Noise. ACM Comput. Surv. 54, 7,
Article 142 (jul 2021), 35 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3464420
[159] M Sadegh Riazi, Christian Weinert, Oleksandr Tkachenko, Ebrahim M Songhori, Thomas Schneider, and Farinaz Koushanfar. 2018. Chameleon:
A hybrid secure computation framework for machine learning applications. In Proceedings of the 2018 on Asia conference on computer and
communications security. 707–721. https://doi.org/10.1145/3196494.3196522
[160] Martin Ringbauer, Michael Meth, Lukas Postler, Roman Stricker, Rainer Blatt, Philipp Schindler, and Thomas Monz. 2022. A universal qudit
quantum processor with trapped ions. Nature Physics 18, 9 (jul 2022), 1053–1057. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-022-01658-0
[161] Javier Rojo, David Valencia, Javier Berrocal, Enrique Moguel, Jose Garcia-Alonso, and Juan Manuel Murillo Rodriguez. 2021. Trials and Tribulations
of Developing Hybrid Quantum-Classical Microservices Systems. arXiv:2105.04421 [cs.SE]
[162] Alessandro Rossi, Paul G. Baity, Vera M. Schäfer, and Martin Weides. 2021. Quantum computing hardware in the cloud: Should a computational
chemist care? International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 121, 14 (may 2021). https://doi.org/10.1002/qua.26688
[163] Abdullah Ash Saki, Alam, Suresh, and Swaroop Ghosh. 2021. A Survey and Tutorial on Security and Resilience of Quantum Computing. Proceedings
of the European Test Workshop 2021-May (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/ETS50041.2021.9465397
[164] Abdullah Ash Saki, Aakarshitha Suresh, Rasit Onur Topaloglu, and Swaroop Ghosh. 2021. Split Compilation for Security of Quantum Circuits. In
2021 IEEE/ACM International Conference On Computer Aided Design (ICCAD). 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCAD51958.2021.9643478
[165] Marie Salm, Barzen, Leymann, and Karoline Wild. 2020. The NISQ Analyzer: Automating the Selection of Quantum Computers for Quantum
Algorithms. In Communications in Computer and Information Science. Vol. 1310. Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH, 66–85.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64846-6_5
[166] Seungchan Seo and Joonwoo Bae. 2022. Measurement Crosstalk Errors in Cloud-Based Quantum Computing. IEEE Internet Computing 26, 1 (2022),
26–33. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2021.3133437
[167] Manuel A. Serrano, Cruz-Lemus, and Mario Piattini. 2022. Quantum Software Components and Platforms: Overview and Quality Assessment.
Comput. Surveys (2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3548679
[168] Hossein Shafiei and Khonsari. 2022. Serverless Computing: A Survey of Opportunities, Challenges, and Applications. Comput. Surveys (2022),
1–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/3510611
[169] Sheng Shen, Tianqing Zhu, Di Wu, Wei Wang, and Wanlei Zhou. 2022. From distributed machine learning to federated learning: In the view of
data privacy and security. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience 34, 16 (2022), e6002. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.6002
[170] Dan Shepherd and Michael J. Bremner. 2009. Temporally unstructured quantum computation. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical,
Physical and Engineering Sciences 465, 2105 (feb 2009), 1413–1439. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2008.0443
[171] Peter W. Shor. 1997. Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer. SIAM J. Comput. 26,
5 (oct 1997), 1484–1509. https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539795293172
[172] Ashish Singh and Kakali Chatterjee. 2017. Cloud security issues and challenges: A survey. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 79 (Feb
2017), 88–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2016.11.027
[173] Amoldeep Singh, Kapal Dev, Siljak, and Maurizio Magarini. 2021. Quantum Internet–Applications, Functionalities, Enabling Technologies,
Challenges, and Research Directions. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 23, 4 (2021), 2218–2247. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2021.
3109944
[174] Harpreet Singh and Abha Sachdev. 2014. The Quantum way of Cloud Computing. In 2014 International Conference on Reliability Optimization and
Information Technology (ICROIT). IEEE, Faridabad, Haryana, India, 397–400. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICROIT.2014.6798362
[175] Sergei Slussarenko and Geoff J. Pryde. 2019. Photonic quantum information processing: A concise review. Applied Physics Reviews 6, 4 (oct 2019).
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5115814
[176] Haryono Soeparno and Anzaludin Samsinga Perbangsa. 2021. Cloud Quantum Computing Concept and Development: A Systematic Literature
Review. Procedia Computer Science 179, 2019 (2021), 944–954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.084
[177] Strangeworks. 2022. Strangeworks Quantum Computing Platform. https://app.quantumcomputing.com/
[178] Martin Suchara, Kubiatowicz, Chong, and Gerardo Paz. 2013. QuRE: The quantum resource estimator toolbox. In 2013 IEEE 31st International
Conference on Computer Design, ICCD 2013. IEEE Computer Society, 419–426. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCD.2013.6657074
[179] D-Wave System. 2022. D-Wave Systems Leap - Quantum Computing Service. https://www.dwavesys.com/solutions-and-products/cloud-platform/
[180] Xiaoqing Tan, Xiaochun Li, and Pei Yang. 2018. Perfect quantum teleportation via Bell states. Comput. Mater. Continua 57, 3 (2018), 495–503.
https://doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2018.03772
[181] Wei Tang, Teague Tomesh, Suchara, and Margaret Martonosi. 2021. CutQC: using small Quantum computers for large Quantum circuit evaluations.
In Proceedings of the 26th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems. Virtual USA,
473–486. https://doi.org/10.1145/3445814.3446758
[182] Swamit S Tannu and Moinuddin Qureshi. 2019. Ensemble of diverse mappings: Improving reliability of quantum computers by orchestrating
dissimilar mistakes. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture. 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3352460.3358257
[183] Jinkai Tian, Xiaoyu Sun, Du, Qing Liu, Zhang, Wanrong Huang, Wang, Min-Hsiu Hsieh, Liu, and Dacheng Tao. 2022. Recent Advances for
Quantum Neural Networks in Generative Learning. http://arxiv.org/abs/2206.03066
Quantum Cloud Computing: A Review, Open Problems, and Future Directions 35

[184] Suryansh Upadhyay and Swaroop Ghosh. 2022. Robust and Secure Hybrid Quantum-Classical Computation on Untrusted Cloud-Based Quantum
Hardware. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Hardware and Architectural Support for Security and Privacy (HASP ’22). ACM.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3569562.3569569
[185] Suryansh Upadhyay, Rasit Onur Topaloglu, and Swaroop Ghosh. 2023. Trustworthy Computing using Untrusted Cloud-Based Quantum Hardware.
arXiv:2305.01826 [quant-ph]
[186] E. Vahapoglu, J. P. Slack-Smith, R. C. C. Leon, W. H. Lim, F. E. Hudson, T. Day, J. D. Cifuentes, T. Tanttu, C. H. Yang, A. Saraiva, N. V. Abrosimov,
H.-J. Pohl, M. L. W. Thewalt, A. Laucht, A. S. Dzurak, and J. J. Pla. 2022. Coherent control of electron spin qubits in silicon using a global field. npj
Quantum Information 8, 1 (nov 2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-022-00645-w
[187] Lieuwe Vinkhuijzen, Tim Coopmans, David Elkouss, Vedran Dunjko, and Alfons Laarman. 2023. LIMDD: A Decision Diagram for Simulation of
Quantum Computing Including Stabilizer States. Quantum 7 (sep 2023), 1108. https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2023-09-11-1108
[188] De Voorhoede. 2024. Quantum Inspire. https://www.quantum-inspire.com/. Accessed: 2024-03-08.
[189] Andrew Wack, Hanhee Paik, Javadi-Abhari, Ismael Faro, and Gambetta. 2021. Quality, Speed, and Scale: three key attributes to measure the
performance of near-term quantum computers. http://arxiv.org/abs/2110.14108 arXiv:2110.14108.
[190] Petros Wallden and Elham Kashefi. 2019. Cyber security in the quantum era. Commun. ACM 62, 4 (mar 2019), 120–120. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3241037
[191] Z. Wang, J. Li, Z. Hu, B. Gage, E. Iwasawa, and W. Jiang. 2023. QuMoS: A Framework for Preserving Security of Quantum Machine Learning
Model. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA,
1089–1097. https://doi.org/10.1109/QCE57702.2023.00123
[192] Benjamin Weder, Johanna Barzen, Frank Leymann, and Marie Salm. 2021. Automated Quantum Hardware Selection for Quantum Workflows.
Electronics 10, 8 (apr 2021), 984. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10080984
[193] Benjamin Weder, Uwe Breitenbucher, Frank Leymann, and Karoline Wild. 2020. Integrating quantum computing into workflow modeling
and execution. In 2020 IEEE/ACM 13th International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing (UCC) (Leicester, United Kingdom). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/UCC48980.2020.00046
[194] Stephanie Wehner and Elkouss. 2018. Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead. Science 362, 6412 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.
aam9288
[195] Liu Wen-Jie, Chen Han-Wu, Ma Ting-Huai, Li Zhi-Qiang, Liu Zhi-Hao, and Hu Wen-Bo. 2009. An efficient deterministic secure quantum
communication scheme based on cluster states and identity authentication. Chinese Physics B 18, 10 (sep 2009), 4105–4109. https://doi.org/10.
1088/1674-1056/18/10/007
[196] Maxwell T. West, Sarah M. Erfani, Christopher Leckie, Martin Sevior, Lloyd C. L. Hollenberg, and Muhammad Usman. 2023. Benchmarking
adversarially robust quantum machine learning at scale. Physical Review Research 5, 2 (jun 2023), 023186. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.
5.023186
[197] Maxwell T. West, Shu-Lok Tsang, Jia S. Low, Charles D. Hill, Christopher Leckie, Lloyd C. L. Hollenberg, Sarah M. Erfani, and Muhammad
Usman. 2023. Towards quantum enhanced adversarial robustness in machine learning. Nature Machine Intelligence 5, 6 (may 2023), 581–589.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-023-00661-1
[198] Xanadu. 2024. Xanadu Quantum Cloud Service. https://www.xanadu.ai/. Accessed: 2024-03-22.
[199] Tao Xin, Shilin Huang, Sirui Lu, Keren Li, Zhihuang Luo, Zhangqi Yin, Jun Li, Dawei Lu, Guilu Long, and Bei Zeng. 2018. NMRCloudQ: a quantum
cloud experience on a nuclear magnetic resonance quantum computer. Science Bulletin 63, 1 (jan 2018), 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2017.
12.022
[200] Zebo Yang, Maede Zolanvari, and Raj Jain. 2023. A Survey of Important Issues in Quantum Computing and Communications. IEEE Communications
Surveys & Tutorials 25, 2 (2023), 1059–1094. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2023.3254481
[201] Man-Hong Yung and Bin Cheng. 2022. Anti-Forging Quantum Data: Cryptographic Verification of Quantum Computational Power.
arXiv:2005.01510 [quant-ph]
[202] Vladimir Yussupov, Jacopo Soldani, Uwe Breitenbücher, Antonio Brogi, and Frank Leymann. 2021. FaaSten your decisions: A classification
framework and technology review of function-as-a-Service platforms. Journal of Systems and Software 175 (may 2021), 110906. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jss.2021.110906
[203] Vladimir Yussupov, Jacopo Soldani, and Uwe Breitenbücherand Antonio Brogiand Frank Leymann. 2021. From Serverful to Serverless: A Spectrum
of Patterns for Hosting Application Components. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Services Science
(CLOSER 2021). SciTePress, 268–279. https://doi.org/10.5220/0010481002680279
[204] Meng Zhang, Yipeng Fu, Jing Wang, and Junsen Lai. 2022. Research on Task Scheduling Scheme for Quantum Computing Cloud Platform. In
Proceedings of the 2022 6th International Conference on Cloud and Big Data Computing (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (ICCBDC ’22). Association
for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 7–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555962.3555964
[205] Yao Zhang and Qiang Ni. 2020. Recent advances in quantum machine learning. Quantum Engineering 2, 1 (mar 2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/que2.34
[206] Jifeng Zhong, Zhihao Liu, and Juan Xu. 2018. Analysis and Improvement of an Efficient Controlled Quantum Secure Direct Communication and
Authentication Protocol. Computers, Materials & Continua 57, 3 (2018). https://doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2018.03706
[207] Maximillian Zinner, Dahlhausen, Jan Ehlers, and Bieske. 2021. Quantum computing’s potential for drug discovery: Early stage industry dynamics.
Drug Discovery Today 26, 7 (jul 2021), 1680–1688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2021.06.003