What physical constraints on qubit connectivity create scheduling bottlenecks absent in GPU memory bandwidth problems?

Qubit Connectivity as a Fundamental Scheduling Constraint

The key difference is that qubit connectivity isn't just a bandwidth problem — it's a *topology* problem that forces serial overhead into your computation itself.

### Why GPU bandwidth and qubit routing are fundamentally different

In a GPU, if you need data from memory, it travels through a fixed, hierarchical network and arrives (after some delay). The computation can overlap with data movement, and you can pipeline operations. Bandwidth is a rate constraint.

In quantum processors, two qubits that need to interact may be *physically distant on the chip*. To execute a two-qubit gate between them, you must physically move one qubit closer to the other using a series of SWAP gates [AG-2024.02-1271]. These SWAPs are real gate operations — they take time, add noise, and consume your quantum circuit depth. You cannot pipeline them away.

This creates three distinct scheduling bottlenecks absent in classical systems:

1. Unavoidable serial gate overhead

The depth overhead of routing qubits depends on the connectivity graph's *routing number* — a graph-theoretic property that bounds how many hops any two qubits must traverse [AG-2024.02-1354]. For a square lattice, this grows with the distance between qubits; for a star topology, it can be much worse. This isn't bandwidth; it's forced serialization of your algorithm.

2. Spatial layout conflicts under multiplexing

When you try to run multiple quantum circuits in parallel on the same device, you face a unique constraint: circuits must maintain *nearest-neighbor locality* to avoid cross-talk noise, and they need spatial buffer zones between them [AG-2024.07-1937]. You're not just allocating qubits; you're packing 2D layouts that respect both algorithmic topology and physical isolation. This is a 2D bin-packing problem with noise-level heterogeneity — something GPUs never face.

3. Temporal burstiness from movement scheduling

Qubit routing creates periods of intense SWAP activity. The metric of "temporal burstiness" [AG-2024.02-1271] — how unevenly movement operations are distributed in time — affects whether errors accumulate in critical windows. GPUs smooth bandwidth demand; quantum circuits can concentrate movement demand sharply.

### Real-world manifestations

In neutral atom systems, atom shuttling offers long-range connectivity, but now you must schedule *which atoms move when* while respecting reconfigurability constraints — leading to novel max-cut optimization problems [AG-2024.05-1887]. In distributed quantum networks, you add *entanglement generation latency* between distant qubits, which causes decoherence during the wait [AG-2024.05-1964]. Neither analogy exists in classical systems.

The bottom line: GPU scheduling optimizes for throughput within a fixed communication pattern. Quantum scheduling must *minimize the communication pattern itself* — reducing necessary movement — because every SWAP degrades fidelity and extends depth.