Approximate Quantum Circuit Synthesis for Diagonal Unitary

Jinyang Liu; Shuai Yang; Wenqi Zhang; Zixiang Zhou

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Approximate Quantum Circuit Synthesis for Diagonal Unitary

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that under a CNOT budget the best approximate diagonal unitary is obtained by keeping the phase gadgets with the largest Rz rotation angles and ordering them so their CNOTs merge.

desk verdict A useful heuristic for approximate diagonal unitary synthesis with a genuine path-ordering trick, but the headline 3.2 utility ratio rests on an unproven selection hypothesis and under-specified experiments. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01869 v1 pith:M2VK3WFB submitted 2024-12-02 quant-ph

Wenqi Zhang , Jinyang Liu , Zixiang Zhou , Shuai Yang This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph MSC 81P6868Q12 PACS 03.67.Lx

keywords quantumcircuitsynthesisdiagonalunitaryapproximatephasegadgetCNOTcountimportanceWalsh-HadamardtransformNISQ

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that, when only k phase gadgets can be used, the k gadgets with the largest phase importance values give the closest diagonal unitary. Phase importance is derived from the Rz rotation angle inside each gadget, and the ordering problem is turned into a path search on a graph where an edge means two gadgets can merge at the cost of one CNOT. If this holds, approximate synthesis becomes a predictable resource trade-off: for errors up to 12%, the CNOT count drops by about 3.2 times the allowed error on average, and circuits for 12 qubits are synthesized in about 6.57 seconds. The authors' stated motivation is NISQ execution, where a shorter approximate circuit can outperform an exact circuit that contains more noisy CNOT gates.

What carries the argument

A phase gadget $P(s,\alpha)$ maps $|x\rangle$ to $e^{i\alpha\langle s,x\rangle}|x\rangle$ and so realizes one Fourier monomial of the phase function $f(x)=\lambda_x$; an exact diagonal unitary therefore needs $2^n$ phase gadgets. The paper's selection machinery is phase importance: the standardized absolute value of the gadget's rotation angle, with a logistic adjustment that widens differences near the decision threshold. The ordering machinery is a graph whose nodes are phase bitstrings, weighted by importance, with an edge between two nodes when the corresponding gadgets can share a target qubit and be merged at a cost of one CNOT; a Hamiltonian-style path search picks active neighbors, extends by reversing path segments, and uses a dead-end heuristic when no active neighbor remains. This reduces approximate synthesis to choosing the important nodes and finding a path that merges their CNOTs.

What would settle it

Compile a synthesized 12-qubit circuit with a 30% CNOT reduction into a concrete gate set and count the actual CNOTs; if the average merge cost per graph edge exceeds one CNOT, or if fresh random instances fail to reproduce the average utility ratio near 3.2, the central cost model is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the minimal-error k-gadget approximation of a diagonal unitary is the set of k phase gadgets with the highest phase importance values, where importance is a standardized, logistically adjusted function of the Rz rotation angle. It further claims that ordering these gadgets along a path through an undirected graph—each node a phase bitstring, each edge a single-CNOT merge—yields a circuit with the advertised CNOT savings. On random target diagonals from 8 to 15 qubits, errors stay within 0–12% while CNOT reductions range from 5% to 50%, producing an average utility ratio of 3.2 and runtimes of about 6.57 seconds at 12 qubits and 561.71 seconds at 15 qubits.

Load-bearing premise

The resource accounting assumes that two phase gadgets connected by a graph edge can always be merged with exactly one additional CNOT on a shared target qubit, for every ordering that the path search produces.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A user who allows 10% algorithmic error can expect roughly a 32% reduction in CNOT gates on average for diagonal unitaries up to 15 qubits.
At a fixed CNOT-saving ratio, the synthesized error decreases as the qubit count grows, so the approximation becomes relatively cheaper in the regime where exact synthesis is most costly.
The synthesis runs in seconds to minutes on an ordinary laptop, so approximate diagonal blocks can be iteratively designed without dedicated hardware.
The phase-importance ranking acts as a pre-filter that shrinks the search space before ordering, which is what keeps the runtime low.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: if the top-k importance rule generalizes to arbitrary Pauli gadgets, the same ranking could approximately synthesize Hamiltonian evolution terms, with lost fidelity governed by the omitted term angles; the paper does not test this.
Editorial extension: on hardware with limited connectivity, the one-CNOT-per-edge merge would require SWAP routing, so the 3.2 utility ratio would likely decrease; rerunning the path search with architecture-dependent edge costs would quantify the drop.
Editorial extension: the reported metric measures unitary distance, not execution fidelity; a hardware experiment that compares end-to-end fidelity of the exact and approximate circuits under realistic CNOT noise would directly test whether the CNOT savings translate into higher circuit fidelity.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about this paper. First, the specific graph-path ordering heuristic—active-node relaxation, path extension, and dead-end handling—is genuinely new as a package, and the 15-qubit synthesis runs on a laptop in minutes is a respectable engineering result. Second, the central claim that selecting the k phase gadgets with largest phase importance is optimal is exactly what the authors say it is: a hypothesis, tested on one 5-qubit instance. The reported 3.2ε CNOT reduction is conditional on that hypothesis holding broadly.

What the paper does well: it is honest about the hypothesis status, the graph model gives a concrete way to order phase gadgets to minimize CNOT count, and the empirical scaling—error drops as qubit count rises at fixed CNOT savings—is a real observation worth explaining. The runtime numbers are plausible for the Python implementation described.

Where it is soft. The stress-test note about |α| versus 2|sin(α/2)| is correct: the marginal error from omitting a gadget is not monotone in |α| once α can exceed π, and the paper never says how the random target unitaries are generated. So we cannot tell whether the test instances ever contain large-angle coefficients that would break the ranking. That is a load-bearing gap, not a nitpick. The hyperparameters γ, ε, ω are left unspecified; no baseline comparison is made against, say, an optimal greedy selection or a random ordering; and the CNOT-count model—shared target qubit, one CNOT per edge—is a cost abstraction that needs a circuit-level justification. Any one of these would be minor; together they make the 3.2 number hard to trust as stated.

Who this is for: people working on NISQ circuit synthesis, especially diagonal subroutines for state preparation or Hamiltonian simulation. They will find the path-ordering ideas worth trying, but they should not adopt the utility ratio as a benchmark until the selection rule is tested on well-specified random ensembles with code attached.

Recommendation: send it to peer review. It is a coherent heuristic with a new component and a clear application, but it needs major revision: specify the parameter distributions, add baselines, release the code and data, and either prove the importance-ranking claim for bounded α or restate it as a heuristic with evidence across many instances. A serious referee could push it into useful shape.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a heuristic for approximate synthesis of diagonal unitaries using phase gadgets under a fixed CNOT budget. It defines a "phase importance" score |α_T[i]| for the Fourier coefficients of the phase function, hypothesizes that the best k-gadget approximation is obtained by selecting the k largest scores, and builds a greedy path-search algorithm (Algorithms 1–6) that orders gadgets so that consecutive ones can be merged at a claimed cost of one CNOT per edge. Experiments on random diagonal unitaries with n = 8, 10, 12, and 15 qubits report CNOT reductions up to 50%, errors up to about 25%, a utility ratio averaging 3.2 in the 0–12% error range, and runtimes from about 0.03 s to 562 s on a laptop. The paper's central claim is framed as a hypothesis in Section 3.3.2 and is validated on a single 5-qubit instance.

Significance. If the central claims held, the paper would offer a practically useful resource–fidelity tradeoff for diagonal unitary synthesis: it scales to 15 qubits on an ordinary laptop, is cheap to run, and its random-instance experiments cover a relevant error range. The authors are also transparent that the selection rule is a hypothesis rather than a theorem. However, the main selection rule is not justified by the paper's own error metric, the CNOT-count model is asserted without a gate-level proof, and the experiments are not reproducible as reported because key hyperparameters, random distributions, trial counts, and baseline comparisons are missing. The paper is therefore a promising heuristic report rather than an established synthesis method.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.3.2, Algorithm 1, Eq. (2)] The central selection rule is load-bearing and is not established. Section 3.3.2 states "we hypothesize" that the k gadgets with largest importance minimize D, and Table 2 validates this on what appears to be a single 5-qubit instance. Algorithm 1 defines importance as |α_T[i]|, but under the metric in Eq. (2) the marginal effect of omitting a gadget with angle α is proportional to |sin(α/2)|; indeed, Table 1's Error column is essentially |sin(α/2)|, not |α|. Since the phase representation is defined only modulo 2π, a Fourier coefficient near 2π can receive a large importance score while contributing almost no error. Even if one restricts α_T to [−π, π], no argument or broad numerical test is given that the k largest single-gadget errors form the globally optimal k-subset under the nonlinear error D. Because Algorithms 2–5 rank and select gadgets using this importance, the reported 3.2 utility ratio does not establish the selection rule. Please replace |α| by the actual marginal error or prove a suitable approximation bound, state any range restriction on α_T, and test the selection rule on many instances, including cases with Fourier coefficients outside [−π, π].
[Section 3.1 and Section 4.1] The CNOT-cost model underlying the reported savings is asserted, not demonstrated. Section 3.1 says "W.L.O.G., let the target qubit of different phase gadgets be the same one," and Section 4.1 says the graph connects two phases "if the number of CNOT gates between them can be reduced to a single CNOT gate." No gate-level construction is given showing that any consecutive pair of selected gadgets can always be merged at exactly one CNOT, and sharing a target qubit is not without loss of generality because the choice of target qubit affects whether consecutive parities differ in a way that permits merging. Since the utility ratio is computed from CNOT counts, this modeling assumption is load-bearing for the paper's quantitative claims. Please provide explicit circuit identities for the merge cost, or state the model as an assumption and validate it by compiling the produced circuits and counting actual CNOT gates.
[Section 5, Algorithms 1–5] The experimental evaluation is not reproducible as reported. The hyperparameters γ (Algorithm 1), ε (Algorithms 2 and 5), and ω (Algorithms 4 and 5) are never assigned numerical values; the distribution used to draw the random parameter vectors λ_T, the number of trials, and the standard deviations behind Table 3 are not stated; and the "utility ratio" is not defined by a formula, although the numbers in Section 5.2 are consistent with ReCNOT/Error. There is also no comparison with the exact or approximate synthesis algorithms cited in Section 2.1, so the headline "3.2ε reduction in CNOT gates" cannot be assessed against any baseline. Please specify all parameter values, report trial counts and error bars, give the utility-ratio definition explicitly, and include at least one baseline (for example, random-order phase-gadget selection or the O(2^n log(1/ε)/n) algorithm mentioned in Section 2.1).

minor comments (5)

[Section 3.2, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) appears to have a typesetting error: the summand should be |e^{iλ_i} − e^{iλ'_i}|^2, with the square outside the absolute value, and the total should be under a square root to be a 2-norm; as printed, the expression is not well formed.
[Section 3.1] The notation for qubit count is inconsistent: the diagonal matrix is written with n entries while the surrounding text uses k and refers to 2^k entries, and the vector λ_T is written as (λ_1, ..., λ_{2k−1}) although it should include λ_0 to have 2^k components.
[Algorithm 5] Line 1 writes α_T = (1/2^k) H^{⊗k} λ_T; if H is the unnormalized Hadamard matrix this normalization is correct, but the convention should be stated explicitly because some readers use the normalized Hadamard.
[Table 3] The table does not define the columns "ReCNOT" and "Error"; please state explicitly that ReCNOT is the percentage of CNOT gates saved and that Error is D from Eq. (2), and clarify how the average utility ratio 3.2 is computed from the rows.
[Section 2.1] The sentence "With a similar method, we can easily obtain a Ω(2^n log(1/ε)/n) size lower bound" is asserted without derivation or citation; please provide the argument or a reference for completeness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the top-k phase-importance claim is presented as an empirical hypothesis and the reported CNOT savings are measured outcomes, not re-used fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that selecting the k phase gadgets with highest phase importance minimizes error, is not derived from the error metric by construction; it is explicitly introduced as a hypothesis ('we hypothesize that when selecting k phase gadgets, the set that minimizes the overall error would consist of the k phase gadgets with the highest importance values') and then tested on random 5-qubit instances in Tables 1 and 2. The phase-importance values are computed from the target's Walsh-Hadamard coefficients (Algorithm 1: Imp[i] = abs(alpha_T[i])), and the algorithm utility ratio of 3.2 is obtained by dividing measured CNOT savings by measured error D(UT, UC) on randomly generated target unitaries (Table 3), so it is an experimental outcome rather than a parameter fitted to the data and then re-predicted. The only author-overlap citation, [23], is used as background on phase-gadget synthesis and for the exact 2^n CNOT baseline; the approximate-selection argument does not depend on it, and removing it would not alter the algorithm or its measured performance. The skeptic's concern that ranking by |alpha| may be suboptimal for large phases because the error contribution is periodic (2|sin(alpha/2)|-like) is a correctness risk about the validity of the hypothesis, not a circularity: the paper does not assume the conclusion in its definitions, and the measured utility ratio would remain an honest measurement even if the ranking rule were suboptimal. No equation is identified in which a predicted quantity is identical to an input by construction, and no self-citation is load-bearing for the central claim. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step is exhibited.

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

The central claim leans on a standard Fourier decomposition, an unproven phase-importance hypothesis, and a CNOT-count model that assumes a shared target qubit with one CNOT per graph edge. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

gamma (logistic adjustment parameter, Algorithm 1) = unspecified
Controls how strongly phase importance differences are amplified near the selection threshold; no value, range, or sensitivity study is given.
epsilon (importance relaxation threshold in active-node definition) = unspecified
Defines which phases count as active; no value or sensitivity analysis is reported.
omega (dead-end handling weight coefficient, Algorithm 4 and Eq. (3)) = swept over [0.01, 0.5] with no stated step
Balances node importance against distance in the scoring function; the sweep range and step are not specified.
Kth-largest threshold and standardization in Algorithm 1 = unspecified
The 0-1 standardization, the choice of temp as the (C+2)-th largest alpha, and the logistic shift are hand-crafted to make the path search behave; no ablation is provided.

assumptions (4)

standard math Any n-qubit diagonal unitary decomposes into 2^n phase gadgets corresponding to Fourier monomials of its phase function.
Invoked in Section 2.2 via the Fourier expansion of Boolean functions; standard background result.
ad hoc to paper The k phase gadgets with largest Rz angle give the smallest error, and phase importances superpose additively.
Section 3.3.2 explicitly calls this a hypothesis and supports it with two 5-qubit tables rather than a proof.
domain assumption All phase gadgets can share a common target qubit without loss of generality.
Section 3.1 states 'W.L.O.G, let the target qubit of different phase gadgets be the same one'; this underlies the CNOT-count model.
domain assumption A path of C+2 phase nodes in the constructed graph is realizable by a circuit with C CNOT gates, one per consecutive edge.
Section 4.1 defines edges as pairs whose inter-gadget CNOTs reduce to one CNOT, but no proof or gate-level decomposition is given.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Approximate Quantum Circuit Synthesis for Diagonal Unitary." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M2VK3WFB

@misc{pith2026241201869,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Approximate Quantum Circuit Synthesis for Diagonal Unitary},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M2VK3WFB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01869}
}

abstract

The quantum circuit synthesis problem bridges quantum algorithm design and quantum hardware implementation in the Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) era. In quantum circuit synthesis problems, diagonal unitary synthesis plays a crucial role due to its fundamental and versatile nature. Meanwhile, experimental results have shown that moderately approximating the original algorithm to conserve quantum resources can improve the fidelity of algorithms during quantum execution. Building on this insight, we propose a quantum circuit synthesis algorithm to design diagonal unitary implementations based on specified quantum resource limits. Our algorithm can synthesize diagonal unitary for quantum circuits with up to 15 qubits on an ordinary laptop. In algorithm efficiency, synthesizing an n-qubit unitary matrix with an exact algorithm requires $2^n$ CNOT gates as a baseline. Within the algorithm error $\varepsilon $ range of interest (0\%-12\%), our algorithm achieves a $3.2\varepsilon $ reduction in CNOT gates on average. In runtime, the algorithm efficiently performs, synthesizing 12-qubit diagonal unitary in an average of 6.57 seconds and 15-qubit in approximately 561.71 seconds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01869 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The error values and the algorithm utility ratio obtained under various CNOT gate reduction ratios. Within the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[1]

Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation,

D. Deutsch and R. Jozsa, “Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation,”Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences , vol. 439, no. 1907, pp. 553–558, 1992

work page 1907
[2]

A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,

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

work page 1996
[3]

Polynominal time algorithms for discrete logarithms and factoring on a quantum computer,

P. W. Shor, “Polynominal time algorithms for discrete logarithms and factoring on a quantum computer,” inAlgo- rithmic Number Theory, First International Symposium, ANTS-I, Ithaca, NY, USA, May 6-9, 1994, Proceedings , 1994

work page 1994
[4]

Quantum machine learning,

J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, “Quantum machine learning,”Nature, vol. 549, no. 7671, pp. 195–202, 2017

2017
[5]

Simulating hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated taylor series,

D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, “Simulating hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated taylor series,” Physical review letters, vol. 114, no. 9, p. 090502, 2015

work page 2015
[6]

Optimal hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing,

G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, “Optimal hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing,” Physical review letters, vol. 118, no. 1, p. 010501, 2017

work page 2017
[7]

Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization,

G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, “Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization,” Quantum, vol. 3, p. 163, 2019

2019
[8]

Hamiltonian simulation with nearly optimal dependence on all parameters,

D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, and R. Kothari, “Hamiltonian simulation with nearly optimal dependence on all parameters,” in 2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on F oundations of Computer Science . IEEE, 2015, pp. 792–809

work page 2015

Show all 39 references

[9]

Architecture for a large-scale ion-trap quantum computer,

D. Kielpinski, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland, “Architecture for a large-scale ion-trap quantum computer,”Nature, vol. 417, no. 6890, pp. 709–711, 2002

2002
[10]

Photonic quantum technologies,

J. L. O’brien, A. Furusawa, and J. Vuˇckovi´c, “Photonic quantum technologies,” Nature Photonics, vol. 3, no. 12, pp. 687–695, 2009

2009
[11]

Superconducting quantum circuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance,

R. Barends, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, A. Veitia, D. Sank, E. Jeffrey, T. C. White, J. Mutus, A. G. Fowler, B. Campbell et al., “Superconducting quantum circuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance,” Nature, vol. 508, no. 7497, pp. 500–503, 2014

2014
[12]

Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,

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

2018
[13]

Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor,

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

2019
[14]

Improved quantum ripple-carry addition circuit,

F. Wang, M. Luo, H. Li, Z. Qu, and X. Wang, “Improved quantum ripple-carry addition circuit,”Science China Information Sciences, vol. 59, 02 2016

2016
[15]

Elementary gates for quantum computation,

A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin, and H. Weinfurter, “Elementary gates for quantum computation,”Physical review A, vol. 52, no. 5, p. 3457, 1995

1995
[16]

Approximation by quantum circuits,

E. Knill, “Approximation by quantum circuits,” arXiv preprint quant-ph/9508006, 1995

1995 arXiv
[17]

Efficient decomposition of quantum gates,

J. J. Vartiainen, M. Möttönen, and M. M. Salomaa, “Efficient decomposition of quantum gates,”Physical review letters, vol. 92, no. 17, p. 177902, 2004

2004
[18]

Minimal universal two-qubit controlled-not-based circuits,

V . V . Shende, I. L. Markov, and S. S. Bullock, “Minimal universal two-qubit controlled-not-based circuits,” Physical Review A, vol. 69, no. 6, p. 062321, 2004

2004
[19]

Decompositions of general quantum gates,

M. Möttönen1 and J. J. Vartiainen, “Decompositions of general quantum gates,”Trends in quantum computing research, p. 149, 2006

2006
[20]

Synthesis of quantum-logic circuits,

V . V . Shende, S. S. Bullock, and I. L. Markov, “Synthesis of quantum-logic circuits,” IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems , vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1000–1010, 2006

2006
[21]

Quantum-state preparation with universal gate decompositions,

M. Plesch and ˇC. Brukner, “Quantum-state preparation with universal gate decompositions,”Physical Review A, vol. 83, no. 3, p. 032302, 2011

2011
[22]

Low-depth quantum state preparation,

X.-M. Zhang, M.-H. Yung, and X. Yuan, “Low-depth quantum state preparation,” Physical Review Research, vol. 3, no. 4, p. 043200, 2021

2021
[23]

Asymptotically optimal circuit depth for quantum state preparation and general unitary synthesis,

X. Sun, G. Tian, S. Yang, P. Yuan, and S. Zhang, “Asymptotically optimal circuit depth for quantum state preparation and general unitary synthesis,” IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 3301–3314, 2023. 10

2023
[24]

Optimal (controlled) quantum state preparation and improved unitary synthesis by quantum circuits with any number of ancillary qubits,

P. Yuan and S. Zhang, “Optimal (controlled) quantum state preparation and improved unitary synthesis by quantum circuits with any number of ancillary qubits,” Quantum, vol. 7, p. 956, 2023

2023
[25]

Parallel quantum algorithm for hamiltonian simulation,

Z. Zhang, Q. Wang, and M. Ying, “Parallel quantum algorithm for hamiltonian simulation,”Quantum, vol. 8, p. 1228, 2024

2024
[26]

99.92%-fidelity cnot gates in solids by noise filtering,

T. Xie, Z. Zhao, S. Xu, X. Kong, Z. Yang, M. Wang, Y . Wang, F. Shi, and J. Du, “99.92%-fidelity cnot gates in solids by noise filtering,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 130, no. 3, p. 030601, 2023

2023
[27]

A monte carlo tree search framework for quantum circuit transformation,

X. Zhou, Y . Feng, and S. Li, “A monte carlo tree search framework for quantum circuit transformation,” in Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Computer-Aided Design , 2020, pp. 1–7

2020
[28]

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

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

2022
[29]

Optimizing quantum circuit synthesis for permutations using recursion,

C. Chen, B. Schmitt, H. Zhang, L. S. Bishop, and A. Javadi-Abhar, “Optimizing quantum circuit synthesis for permutations using recursion,” in Proceedings of the 59th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference , 2022, pp. 7–12

2022
[30]

Optimizing quantum circuit placement via machine learning,

H. Fan, C. Guo, and W. Luk, “Optimizing quantum circuit placement via machine learning,” in Proceedings of the 59th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, 2022, pp. 19–24

2022
[31]

A meet-in-the-middle algorithm for fast synthesis of depth- optimal quantum circuits,

M. Amy, D. Maslov, M. Mosca, and M. Roetteler, “A meet-in-the-middle algorithm for fast synthesis of depth- optimal quantum circuits,” IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems , vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 818–830, 2013

2013
[32]

Single-qubit gates matter for optimising quantum circuit depth in qubit mapping,

S. Li, K. D. Nguyen, Z. Clare, and Y . Feng, “Single-qubit gates matter for optimising quantum circuit depth in qubit mapping,” in 2023 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–9

2023
[33]

Quanto: Optimizing quantum circuits with automatic generation of circuit identities,

J. Pointing, O. Padon, Z. Jia, H. Ma, A. Hirth, J. Palsberg, and A. Aiken, “Quanto: Optimizing quantum circuits with automatic generation of circuit identities,” Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 9, no. 4, p. 045009, 2024

2024
[34]

Quantum computation and quantum information,

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

2002
[35]

Qfast: Conflating search and numerical optimization for scalable quantum circuit synthesis,

E. Younis, K. Sen, K. Yelick, and C. Iancu, “Qfast: Conflating search and numerical optimization for scalable quantum circuit synthesis,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE). IEEE, 2021, pp. 232–243

2021
[36]

Quest: systematically approximating quantum circuits for higher output fidelity,

T. Patel, E. Younis, C. Iancu, W. de Jong, and D. Tiwari, “Quest: systematically approximating quantum circuits for higher output fidelity,” in Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, 2022, ...

2022
[37]

Quct: A framework for analyzing quantum circuit by extracting contextual and topological features,

S. Tan, C. Lang, L. Xiang, S. Wang, X. Jia, Z. Tan, T. Li, J. Yin, Y . Shang, A. Pythonet al., “Quct: A framework for analyzing quantum circuit by extracting contextual and topological features,” in Proceedings of the 56th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchit...

2023
[38]

Spacetime-efficient low-depth quantum state preparation with applications,

K. Gui, A. M. Dalzell, A. Achille, M. Suchara, and F. T. Chong, “Spacetime-efficient low-depth quantum state preparation with applications,” Quantum, vol. 8, p. 1257, 2024

2024
[39]

A new algorithm for finding hamiltonian circuits,

A. Dharwadker, “A new algorithm for finding hamiltonian circuits,”Proceedings of the Institute of Mathematics , 2004. 11

2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation,

D. Deutsch and R. Jozsa, “Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation,”Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences , vol. 439, no. 1907, pp. 553–558, 1992

work page 1907

[2] [2]

A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,

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

work page 1996

[3] [3]

Polynominal time algorithms for discrete logarithms and factoring on a quantum computer,

P. W. Shor, “Polynominal time algorithms for discrete logarithms and factoring on a quantum computer,” inAlgo- rithmic Number Theory, First International Symposium, ANTS-I, Ithaca, NY, USA, May 6-9, 1994, Proceedings , 1994

work page 1994

[4] [4]

Quantum machine learning,

J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, “Quantum machine learning,”Nature, vol. 549, no. 7671, pp. 195–202, 2017

2017

[5] [5]

Simulating hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated taylor series,

D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, “Simulating hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated taylor series,” Physical review letters, vol. 114, no. 9, p. 090502, 2015

work page 2015

[6] [6]

Optimal hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing,

G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, “Optimal hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing,” Physical review letters, vol. 118, no. 1, p. 010501, 2017

work page 2017

[7] [7]

Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization,

G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, “Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization,” Quantum, vol. 3, p. 163, 2019

2019

[8] [8]

Hamiltonian simulation with nearly optimal dependence on all parameters,

D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, and R. Kothari, “Hamiltonian simulation with nearly optimal dependence on all parameters,” in 2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on F oundations of Computer Science . IEEE, 2015, pp. 792–809

work page 2015