Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 63 references

A generic multi-Pauli compilation framework for limited connectivity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces a Clifford-based compilation framework that implements several non-commuting Pauli exponentiations at once and reports CNOT reductions of up to about a third on ADAPT-VQE circuits for limited-connectivity hardware.

desk verdict Genuine multi-Pauli compilation with real CNOT gains, but the proprietary random-search database makes the headline comparison hard to verify. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06909 v1 pith:OG72NKWR submitted 2024-12-09 quant-ph

Adam Glos , Özlem Salehi This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumcircuitcompilationPaulinetworksynthesislimitedconnectivityCliffordExecutiveRepresentationmulti-PaulilazyADAPT-VQECNOTcountreduction
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

This paper proposes a way to compile quantum circuits, especially variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) ansatzes, that treats several Pauli operators at once rather than one at a time, and that is designed for chips with limited qubit connectivity. The tool that makes it work is the Clifford Executive Representation (CER), a compact bookkeeping of which Pauli rotations are available as single-qubit gates at any stage of the circuit. Using CER, the Multi-Pauli Lazy Synthesis (MPLS) method compresses a batch of Paulis into a small set of qubits, implements them with single-qubit rotations, and resets the Clifford frame only at the end. On heavy-hexagonal hardware, the paper reports that MPLS beats both Steiner synthesis and lazy synthesis for ADAPT-VQE ground-state circuits, with CNOT counts such as H6 falling from 2888 (Steiner) and 2444 (lazy) to 1869, and N2 falling from 395 (lazy) to 295. The same representation also yields a Clifford resynthesis algorithm that outperforms the compared stabilizer-synthesis method.

What carries the argument

Clifford Executive Representation (CER), defined as a function assigning to each qubit q and Pauli type P in {Z, X, Y} a Pauli string CER_{q,P}, with the property that for a Clifford circuit C, a single-qubit P-rotation on q realizes exp(iθ CER_{q,P}). The Z and X registers form a complete independent set of Pauli strings, and the Y register stores their products, so the representation extends the tableau used in lazy synthesis. The paper gives explicit update rules under Hadamard, S, and CNOT gates, derives the bound M ≤ 3N + 4K connecting the number M of Paulis realizable to the number K of CNOTs, and uses precomputed Clifford databases as the two load-bearing components: compressing circuits that remove information qubit by qubit down to k qubits, and implementation circuits that make several Paulis appear in the registers so they can be executed as one-qubit rotations.

What would settle it

Compile the same ADAPT-VQE ansatzes with MPLS restricted to a single Pauli per batch while keeping all other choices fixed; if the CNOT count does not rise toward the lazy-synthesis baseline, then multi-Pauli batching itself is not carrying the reported advantage.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that 'lazy' Pauli-network compilation need not be restricted to commuting groups or to individual Paulis: a Clifford circuit can be arranged so that several non-commuting Pauli exponentiations become available at once as single-qubit rotations, and this saves two-qubit gates on limited-connectivity devices. The paper introduces CER as the intermediate representation that makes this possible: it stores, for each qubit and each of the Z, X, Y registers, the Pauli string that a single-qubit rotation would realize. Compression Clifford circuits, drawn from precomputed databases, localize the information of up to four Paulis into a small number of qubits, and implementation Clifford circuits place the batch into the registers. Benchmarks on ADAPT-VQE ansatzes for H6, LiH, N2, BeH2, and BODIPY-4 compiled onto a heavy-hexagonal graph show lower CNOT counts than Steiner synthesis and lazy synthesis, and the improvement over lazy synthesis also holds when the final resetting Clifford tail is omitted. The paper states this is the first compilation method to target multiple not-necessarily-commuting Paulis simultaneously while working with limited connectivity by design.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that good small Clifford circuits for compression and implementation can be found in advance by random search (the paper reports this becomes infeasible beyond four qubits or four Paulis), and that the Pauli strings are sufficiently local on the hardware graph; if either fails, MPLS loses its edge over Steiner synthesis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For ADAPT-VQE ansatzes on heavy-hexagonal hardware, MPLS reduces CNOT counts relative to both Steiner synthesis and lazy synthesis; the paper's Table 2 reports H6 dropping from 2888 (Steiner) and 2444 (lazy) to 1869 CNOTs, and N2 dropping from 395 (lazy) to 295.
  • The improvement over lazy synthesis persists when both methods are compared without the final resetting Clifford circuit, so the gain does not come only from the end-of-circuit Clifford cleanup.
  • The same CER-based machinery yields a multi-Pauli Clifford synthesis method (MPCS) that outperforms the compared stabilizer-synthesis baseline on random Clifford circuits under linear-neighbour connectivity.
  • For fermionic double-excitation operators whose Majorana strings are O(sqrt(n))-local on heavy-hex grids, the resetting variant MPR beats Steiner synthesis and often lazy synthesis, so the multi-Pauli idea applies even with per-batch resetting.
  • Because most Clifford+T circuits can be recast as a Pauli network followed by a single Clifford circuit, the framework extends beyond directly given Pauli networks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Clifford databases could be generated by a deterministic method rather than by random search, the k > 4 regime the paper identifies as infeasible would become the natural next target; the authors' bottleneck is database generation, not the CER concept itself.
  • A hybrid scheduler that measures average hardware distance of each Pauli batch and switches between MPLS and resetting synthesis could extend the method to the O(sqrt(n))-local regime where the paper itself says MPLS will not be efficient.
  • The bound K ≥ (M − 3N)/4 offers a quick sanity check for any compiler of Pauli networks: comparing reported CNOT counts against it would show how close to the information-theoretic floor each method operates.
  • Optimizing Pauli-list selection using commutativity and expected gate overhead, which the paper lists as an open degree of freedom, could improve the per-Pauli cost beyond the consecutive-order batches tested here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a compilation framework for limited-connectivity quantum devices based on a new intermediate representation, Clifford Executive Representation (CER), which tracks the Pauli operators that single-qubit rotations implement at each point in a circuit. The main algorithmic contribution is Multi-Pauli Lazy Synthesis (MPLS) and its resetting variant (MPR), which jointly localize and implement multiple, not necessarily commuting Pauli exponentials using precomputed Clifford databases for compression and implementation. A companion Clifford resynthesis method (MPCS) is also proposed. The authors benchmark these methods against Steiner synthesis and lazy synthesis on random and ADAPT-VQE circuits, reporting CNOT-count reductions for path-graph and heavy-hexagonal layouts. Appendix B supplies a proof that any M Pauli operators can be compressed into M qubits by a Clifford circuit.

Significance. If the empirical claims are trustworthy, the paper makes a useful contribution to NISQ compilation: the CER formalism is a clean generalization of tableau-based lazy synthesis, and the idea of handling several non-commuting Pauli operators at once is new to this line of work. The update rules in Table 1 and the compression theorem in Appendix B are mathematically sound, the latter being a parameter-free existence guarantee. The paper honestly acknowledges two major scope limitations: database construction becomes infeasible for more than four qubits/Paulis, and the method is not efficient for O(sqrt(n))-local operators on 2D grids or heavy-hexagonal hardware. The central weakness is that the headline 'outperforms' claim rests on precomputed databases produced by a random search with no completeness guarantee, and neither the databases nor the code are released. This makes independent verification impossible and leaves open the possibility that the reported improvements are artifacts of one database sample.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A and Table 2] The central numerical claim is not yet independently reproducible. The Clifford databases that determine the cost of every compression and implementation step are produced by random search with a heuristic CNOT budget K and no completeness criterion; Appendix A states only that K is 'adapted heuristically to make sure that some Clifford circuit of interest is generated'. The databases are not included with the paper, the code is proprietary, and data are only available 'upon reasonable request'. Since a differently generated database could lead to different CNOT counts, the reported improvements in Table 2 and Figs 3-5 should be accompanied by either (a) the actual databases, (b) a constructive generation procedure with a guarantee that all required configurations are found, or (c) statistics over many independent database seeds (for example, mean, min, and variance of CNOT counts). Without one of these, the claim that MPLS 'outperforms' Steiner synthesis and lazy synthesis is not established as a property of the framework.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Discussion] The paper itself concedes two significant limitations: database generation becomes infeasible for k > 4, and for O(sqrt(n))-local Majorana strings on heavy-hexagonal or 2D-grid architectures the proposed method 'will not be efficient' because Steiner synthesis already guarantees O(M sqrt(n)) two-qubit gates while the proposed method likely requires O(M n). These boundaries substantially narrow the scope of the headline claim. The abstract and introduction currently say only that the methods 'outperform the state-of-the-art' and are 'particularly suitable for limited connectivity'. The authors should state these limitations explicitly in the abstract and introduction, and the benchmark section should clearly indicate which of the tested settings fall inside the efficient regime.
  3. [Section 3.1 and Figs 3-5] The benchmark comparisons are reported as single aggregated numbers without error bars, confidence intervals, or a statement of the number of random instances per configuration. Since the ansatze, layouts, and in some cases the Clifford circuits are generated randomly (Appendices C.1-C.3), the observed differences of roughly 20-30% in CNOT count could in principle be within sampling noise. The paper should provide per-instance scatter plots, mean and standard deviation over independent runs, and a fixed seed policy. In addition, because all baselines are implemented by the authors (Appendix C), it would strengthen the comparison to make those baseline implementations publicly available or to compare against canonical released implementations where they exist.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 1 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'Not that the selected Clifford operations' should be 'Note that the selected Clifford operations'.
  2. [Appendix C.4, item 5] The text 'This step is repeated auntil' should read 'This step is repeated until'.
  3. [Section 3.1, Eq. (6)] The symbols m_j and \bar m_j are used in Eq. (6) before their definitions are given. Please move the definitions a_j^\dagger + a_j and i(a_j^\dagger - a_j) before the equation.
  4. [Reference [31]] Reference [31] is cited as a 2024 IWQC webpage with no stable identifier. Please provide a permanent reference, such as an arXiv identifier or a DOI, so that the comparison with the proposed method can be verified.
  5. [Abstract] The abstract states that the methods 'outperform the state-of-the-art' without naming the baselines. Mentioning Steiner synthesis and lazy synthesis in the abstract would make the claim concrete and match the body of the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity in the derivation: the MPLS/MPCS/MPR CNOT-count claims are measured outputs of constructive algorithms, and the paper's self-citations ([35], [40]) are symmetric benchmark infrastructure rather than load-bearing premises.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical CNOT-count benchmarks produced by constructive algorithms (MPLS, MPR, MPCS), not quantities derived by definition from the method's own inputs. The CER formalism is the standard Aaronson-Gottesman tableau extended with an explicit Y register (CER_{q,Y} = CER_{q,Z} · CER_{q,X}), and every use of it (Eqs. 1-4, the compression/implementation definitions in Sec. 2.1, and the existence theorem in Appendix B) is a direct Clifford-conjugation fact with a constructive proof; no equation in the paper is equivalent to its own input. The headline comparisons (Figs. 3-6, Table 2) are measured differences of circuit counts output by the compared compilers, so they are externally falsifiable and do not reduce to a fit. The nearest candidate for a fitted-input concern is the Clifford database construction in Appendix A, where the CNOT budget K is 'adapted heuristically to make sure that some Clifford circuit of interest is generated'; however, the reported CNOT counts are outputs of running the method, not predictions statistically forced by K, and the paper explicitly admits the search becomes infeasible for k>4 in the Discussion. That is a completeness and reproducibility limitation (aggravated by the proprietary-code statement), not a circular step. The self-citations are used as symmetric benchmark infrastructure for all compared methods (SS, LS, MPLS alike): [35] (treespilation, co-authored by Glos) supplies the common mapping and the SS baseline, and [40] (BODIPY-4, by both authors, 'In preparation') supplies one molecule row that is redundant with the consistent improvement across the other four molecules, so neither foreordains the 'outperforms' verdict. A separate novelty concern — the 'first' claim in Sec. 1 coexists with [31], which the authors themselves describe as synthesizing pairs of Zq, Xq simultaneously under limited connectivity in Sec. 3.2 — is a prior-art/correctness matter, not circularity. No circular step can be exhibited, so the honest finding is no significant circularity, with a token score for self-citational context.

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

The ledger lists algorithmic hyperparameters and background assumptions that the central benchmark claims depend on. No new physical entities are postulated; CER is a mathematical representation, not a physical object.

free parameters (4)
  • Database CNOT budget K = not specified numerically
    Heuristically chosen in Appendix A to ensure generation of Clifford circuits; directly controls database quality and compilation quality.
  • Compression target qubit count n = 3 or 4
    The implementation uses n=3 (random circuits) and 4 (treespilation, MPR), because larger n infeasible; affects CNOT overhead.
  • Implementation batch size = 3
    Paulis implemented in batches of 3 in most experiments (C.1, C.2, C.4); larger batches infeasible due to database limits.
  • Tree height/layout parameters = cooling rate 0.9995, initial 50, final 1
    Simulated annealing hyperparameters in C.4; standard but chosen by hand.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Stabilizer formalism and tableau update rules (Aaronson-Gottesman), used to define CER.
    CER is defined as stabilizer/destabilizer sets (Sec 2).
  • domain assumption Input circuits are Pauli networks of the form Eq. (3).
    The algorithm assumes the circuit to compile is a sequence of Pauli exponentials; most circuits can be converted, but the conversion is not itself analyzed in depth.
  • domain assumption Hardware connectivity graph is known and supports Steiner trees and connected subgraphs.
    Compression and implementation components operate on such subgraphs (Sec 3.1).
  • ad hoc to paper Clifford databases of sufficient quality for up to 4 qubits can be precomputed by random search.
    The performance and correctness of the compression step depend on these databases; the paper reports infeasibility for k>4 (Discussion).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A generic multi-Pauli compilation framework for limited connectivity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OG72NKWR

@misc{pith2026241206909,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A generic multi-Pauli compilation framework for limited connectivity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OG72NKWR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06909}
}
read the original abstract

Efficient and effective compilation of quantum circuits remains an important aspect of executing quantum programs. In this paper, we propose a generic compilation framework particularly suitable for limited connectivity, that extends many of the known techniques for Pauli network synthesis. Our compilation method, built on the introduced Clifford Executive Representation, stands out by considering the implementation of multiple Pauli operators at once, which are not necessarily commuting. The proposed technique also allows for effective Clifford circuit synthesis. We benchmark our methods against circuits resulting from the Variational Quantum Eigensolver algorithm and the results show that the proposed methods outperform the state-of-the-art.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06909 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of simple routine of compiling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Final circuit from the procedure presented in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. CNOT counts for various numbers of qubits and an increasing number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: CNOT counts for various numbers of Pauli exponentiations and an increasing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: CNOT counts for random circuits that consist of a single double excitation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: CNOT counts for different Clifford synthesis methods for increasing number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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

  2. [2]

    Simulating physics with computers,

    R. P. Feynman, “Simulating physics with computers,” in Feynman and computa- tion, pp. 133–153, cRc Press, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Potential of quantum computing for drug discovery,

    Y. Cao, J. Romero, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “Potential of quantum computing for drug discovery,” IBM Journal of Research and Development, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 6–1, 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Quantum network medicine: rethinking medicine with network science and quantum algorithms,

    S. Maniscalco, E.-M. Borrelli, D. Cavalcanti, C. Foti, A. Glos, M. Goldsmith, S. Knecht, K. Korhonen, J. Malmi, A. Nyk¨ anen, et al. , “Quantum network medicine: rethinking medicine with network science and quantum algorithms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.12405 , 2022

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quantum materials science,

    B. Bauer, S. Bravyi, M. Motta, and G. K.-L. Chan, “Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quantum materials science,” Chemical Reviews, vol. 120, no. 22, pp. 12685–12717, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Quantum algorithm providing exponential speed increase for finding eigenvalues and eigenvectors,

    D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, “Quantum algorithm providing exponential speed increase for finding eigenvalues and eigenvectors,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 83, no. 24, p. 5162, 1999

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    A variational eigenvalue solver on a pho- tonic quantum processor,

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’brien, “A variational eigenvalue solver on a pho- tonic quantum processor,” Nature Communications, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 4213, 2014. 17

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Strategies for quantum computing molecular energies using the unitary coupled cluster ansatz,

    J. Romero, R. Babbush, J. R. McClean, C. Hempel, P. J. Love, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, “Strategies for quantum computing molecular energies using the unitary coupled cluster ansatz,” Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 014008, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets,

    A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, “Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets,” nature, vol. 549, no. 7671, pp. 242–246, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer,

    H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, “An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer,” Nature communications, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 3007, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    qubit-adapt-vqe: An adaptive algorithm for constructing hardware-efficient ans¨ atze on a quantum processor,

    H. L. Tang, V. Shkolnikov, G. S. Barron, H. R. Grimsley, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, “qubit-adapt-vqe: An adaptive algorithm for constructing hardware-efficient ans¨ atze on a quantum processor,”PRX Quantum, vol. 2, no. 2, p. 020310, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Qubit- Excitation-Based adaptive variational quantum eigensolver,

    Y. S. Yordanov, V. Armaos, C. H. Barnes, and D. R. Arvidsson-Shukur, “Qubit- Excitation-Based adaptive variational quantum eigensolver,” Communications Physics, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 228, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Reducing the resources required by ADAPT-VQE using coupled ex- change operators and improved subroutines,

    M. Ramˆ oa, P. G. Anastasiou, L. P. Santos, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, “Reducing the resources required by ADAPT-VQE using coupled ex- change operators and improved subroutines,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.08696 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Tetris- adapt-vqe: An adaptive algorithm that yields shallower, denser circuit ans¨ atze,

    P. G. Anastasiou, Y. Chen, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, “Tetris- adapt-vqe: An adaptive algorithm that yields shallower, denser circuit ans¨ atze,” Physical Review Research, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 013254, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Mitigating the measurement overhead of adapt-vqe with optimised information- ally complete generalised measurements,

    A. Nyk¨ anen, M. A. Rossi, E.-M. Borrelli, S. Maniscalco, and G. Garc ´ ıa-P´ erez, “Mitigating the measurement overhead of adapt-vqe with optimised information- ally complete generalised measurements,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09719 , 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Paulihedral: a generalized block-wise compiler optimization framework for quantum simulation kernels,

    G. Li, A. Wu, Y. Shi, A. Javadi-Abhari, Y. Ding, and Y. Xie, “Paulihedral: a generalized block-wise compiler optimization framework for quantum simulation kernels,” in Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and O...

    2022

  9. [17]

    Tetris: A compilation framework for VQA applications in quantum computing,

    Y. Jin, Z. Li, F. Hua, T. Hao, H. Zhou, Y. Huang, and E. Z. Zhang, “Tetris: A compilation framework for VQA applications in quantum computing,” in 2024 ACM/IEEE 51st Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA), pp. 277–292, IEEE, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Circuit optimization of Hamiltonian simulation by simultaneous diagonalization of Pauli clusters,

    E. Van Den Berg and K. Temme, “Circuit optimization of Hamiltonian simulation by simultaneous diagonalization of Pauli clusters,” Quantum, vol. 4, p. 322, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    A generic compilation strategy for the unitary coupled cluster ansatz,

    A. Cowtan, W. Simmons, and R. Duncan, “A generic compilation strategy for the unitary coupled cluster ansatz,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.10515 , 2020. 18

    2007 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Meijer-van de Griend, Advances in Quantum Compilation in the NISQ Era

    A. Meijer-van de Griend, Advances in Quantum Compilation in the NISQ Era . Doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Architecture-aware synthesis of phase polynomials for NISQ devices,

    A. Meijer-van de Griend and R. Duncan, “Architecture-aware synthesis of phase polynomials for NISQ devices,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.06052 , 2020

    2004 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Phase polynomials synthesis algorithms for NISQ architectures and beyond,

    V. Vandaele, S. Martiel, and T. G. de Brugi` ere, “Phase polynomials synthesis algorithms for NISQ architectures and beyond,” Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 7, no. 4, p. 045027, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    On the CNOT-complexity of CNOT-phase circuits,

    M. Amy, P. Azimzadeh, and M. Mosca, “On the CNOT-complexity of CNOT-phase circuits,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.01859 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Quantum circuit optimizations for NISQ architectures,

    B. Nash, V. Gheorghiu, and M. Mosca, “Quantum circuit optimizations for NISQ architectures,” Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 025010, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    CNOT circuit extraction for topologically-constrained quantum memories,

    A. Kissinger and A. Meijer-van de Griend, “CNOT circuit extraction for topologically-constrained quantum memories,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.00633 , 2019

    1904 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Towards a generic compilation approach for quantum cir- cuits through resynthesis,

    A. M. van de Griend, “Towards a generic compilation approach for quantum cir- cuits through resynthesis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08814 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Annealing optimisation of mixed ZX phase circuits,

    S. Gogioso and R. Yeung, “Annealing optimisation of mixed ZX phase circuits,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.11839 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    A recursively partitioned approach to architecture-aware ZX polynomial synthesis and optimization,

    D. Winderl, Q. Huang, and C. B. Mendl, “A recursively partitioned approach to architecture-aware ZX polynomial synthesis and optimization,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , vol. 1, pp. 837–847, IEEE, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Faster and shorter synthesis of hamiltonian simulation circuits,

    T. G. de Brugi` ere and S. Martiel, “Faster and shorter synthesis of hamiltonian simulation circuits,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03280 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Quclear: Clifford extraction and absorption for significant reduction in quantum circuit size,

    J. Liu, A. Gonzales, B. Huang, Z. H. Saleem, and P. Hovland, “Quclear: Clifford extraction and absorption for significant reduction in quantum circuit size,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13316, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A greedy search algorithm for the construction of architecture-aware Pauli-exponential-Clifford circuits,

    S. Dilkes and Y. Tang, “A greedy search algorithm for the construction of architecture-aware Pauli-exponential-Clifford circuits,” 2024. available at https: //quantum-compilers.github.io/iwqc2024/accepted.html

    2024

  24. [32]

    Architecture aware compilation of quantum circuits via lazy synthesis,

    S. Martiel and T. G. de Brugi` ere, “Architecture aware compilation of quantum circuits via lazy synthesis,” Quantum, vol. 6, p. 729, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Architecture- aware synthesis of stabilizer circuits from Clifford tableaus,

    D. Winderl, Q. Huang, A. M.-v. de Griend, and R. Yeung, “Architecture- aware synthesis of stabilizer circuits from Clifford tableaus,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.08972, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits,

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, “Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits,” Phys- ical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics , vol. 70, no. 5, p. 052328, 2004. 19

    2004

  27. [35]

    Treespilation: Architecture- and state- optimised fermion-to-qubit mappings,

    A. Miller, A. Glos, and Z. Zimbor´ as, “Treespilation: Architecture- and state- optimised fermion-to-qubit mappings,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03992 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. P. Wigner, ¨Uber das paulische ¨ aquivalenzverbot. Springer, 1993

    1993

  29. [37]

    Fermionic quantum computation,

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, “Fermionic quantum computation,” Annals of Physics, vol. 298, no. 1, pp. 210–226, 2002

    2002

  30. [38]

    Magic State Distillation: Not as Costly as You Think,

    D. Litinski, “Magic State Distillation: Not as Costly as You Think,” Quantum, vol. 3, p. 205, Dec. 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Hadamard-free circuits expose the structure of the Clif- ford group,

    S. Bravyi and D. Maslov, “Hadamard-free circuits expose the structure of the Clif- ford group,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 4546– 4563, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Excita- tion energies of a Thiophene-fused boron dipyrromethene (BODIPY) fluorophore simulated on a superconducting quantum computer,

    A. Fitzpatrick, L. Thiessen, W. N. Talarico, ¨O. Salehi, A. Nyk¨ anen, K. Korhonen, A. Miller, H. Vappula, E.-M. Borrelli, D. Cavalcanti, M. A. C. Rossi, G. Garc ´ ıa- P´ erez, S. Maniscalco, V. Krishna, , A. Glos, F. Pavoˇ sevi´ c, and S. Knecht, “Excita- tion energies of a T...

    2024

  33. [41]

    A faster approximation algorithm for the Steiner problem in graphs,

    K. Mehlhorn, “A faster approximation algorithm for the Steiner problem in graphs,” Information Processing Letters, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 125–128, 1988

    1988

  34. [42]

    Pauliopt

    “Pauliopt.” https://github.com/hashberg-io/pauliopt. A Clifford databases Our method heavily relies on well-adjusted Clifford databases that locally transform the intermediate representation. The necessary steps for creating such a Clifford database comprise of:

  35. [43]

    In our case, we only use compressing and implementing Cliffords from 2.1

    Formally specifying the requirements of the Clifford operation. In our case, we only use compressing and implementing Cliffords from 2.1

  36. [44]

    This may in par- ticular include information about the pairs of qubits that can be interacted with CNOTs

    Formally specifying the constraints of the Clifford operation. This may in par- ticular include information about the pairs of qubits that can be interacted with CNOTs

  37. [45]

    In our case, we focus on finding Clifford circuits that minimize the number of CNOT gates

    In case there is more than one Clifford circuit obeying the specified requirements and constraints, one may optionally add a cost function that assesses the ‘good- ness’ of the circuit. In our case, we focus on finding Clifford circuits that minimize the number of CNOT gates. ...

  38. [46]

    Pauli lists of length M were selected so that for each list there were M ≤ 3 Paulis that span all the other Paulis in the list

  39. [47]

    , PM , circuits for each sublists P1,

    Given a list of Paulis P1, . . . , PM , circuits for each sublists P1, . . . , Pk for each k = 1, . . . , Mwere found. The sublist of Paulis was selected so that #CNOT /k was minimized

  40. [48]

    The information was compressed from 4 into 3 qubits

    The compression was done using a pre-computed database and the leaf to be removed was selected randomly. The information was compressed from 4 into 3 qubits

  41. [49]

    During the compression phase, whenever a Pauli appeared in CER, and commu- tativity relations for Paulis in the list allowed for implementing the Pauli, it was implemented

  42. [50]

    The Clifford circuits that appeared at the end of LS and MPLS methods were resyn- thesized using Pauliopt method

    Once the subgraph containing the information about Paulis consists of 4 nodes only, the remaining Paulis from the list were implemented in batches of 3. The Clifford circuits that appeared at the end of LS and MPLS methods were resyn- thesized using Pauliopt method. C.2 Multi-...

  43. [51]

    C.1, except that it was first prepended with the trotterization of the 8-Pauli double excitations

    Steiner synthesis as explained in Sec. C.1, except that it was first prepended with the trotterization of the 8-Pauli double excitations. The order of trotterization was carried to maximize the CNOT cancellation, by reducing the problem of finding a good order to the Hamiltoni...

  44. [52]

    Lazy synthesis implemented exactly as in the previous subsection with arbitrary trotterization and final Clifford circuits for final resynthesis via PauliOpt

  45. [53]

    In this case: (a) We always compressed all 8-Paulis together, in which the leaf to be removed was selected randomly

    MPR prepended with the same trotterization order as for lazy synthesis. In this case: (a) We always compressed all 8-Paulis together, in which the leaf to be removed was selected randomly. The compression components were removing qubit by qubit each time compressing the inform...

  46. [54]

    We took the original implementation from [42]

    Clifford synthesis method from [33] which we refer to as PauliOpt. We took the original implementation from [42]

  47. [55]

    In each step a pair of logical q and physical qubits q′ are taken which requires the smallest number of gates to compute first Zq, then Xq on physical qubits q′

    Variant of PauliOpt strategy, in which the logical qubits possibly correspond to different physical qubits i.e., the synthesis is done up to a sequence of SW APs on the right-hand side. In each step a pair of logical q and physical qubits q′ are taken which requires the smalle...

  48. [56]

    Multi-Pauli Clifford Synthesis method where the order of logical qubits is pre- served. The resynthesis procedure works as follows: (a) For each qubit that does not disconnect the subgraph, two circuits were generated: the first one works by implementing Zq on qubit q and late...

  49. [57]

    Multi-Pauli Lazy Clifford synthesis method in which the logical qubits possibly correspond to different physical qubits. The same procedure as in the previous 24 point is implemented, except that Paulis Zq and Xq might be uncomputed to possibly different qubits q′, and thus al...

  50. [58]

    This step is repeated until no such Pauli from the group is found

    If a Pauli to be implemented is already present in the intermediate representation, it is implemented. This step is repeated until no such Pauli from the group is found

  51. [59]

    If all the Paulis to be implemented from a group are localized within 4 qubits forming a connected induced subgraph, they are all implemented using a Clifford circuit from the implementation database in batches of size 3

  52. [60]

    This step is repeated until no such Pauli from the group is found

    If a Pauli to be implemented is localized within 2 qubits forming a connected subgraph, it is implemented. This step is repeated until no such Pauli from the group is found

  53. [61]

    This step is repeated until no such Pauli from the group is found

    If a Pauli to be implemented is localized within 3 qubits forming a connected subgraph, it is implemented. This step is repeated until no such Pauli from the group is found

  54. [62]

    This step is repeated auntil no such Pauli from the group is found

    If a Pauli to be implemented is localized within 4 qubits forming a connected subgraph, it is implemented. This step is repeated auntil no such Pauli from the group is found

  55. [63]

    After this step, the procedure repeats starting from step 1

    The compression component is executed, in which a qubit from the subgraph from which the information is removed is chosen to be the one that requires the smallest number of 2-qubit gates. After this step, the procedure repeats starting from step 1. The Pauli strings were selec...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.