Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Augmenting Simulated Noisy Quantum Data Collection by Orders of Magnitude Using Pre-Trajectory Sampling with Batched Execution

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new two-phase method, Pre-Trajectory Sampling with Batched Execution, claims to turn quantum trajectory simulation into a programmable noisy-data factory with speedups up to a millionfold.

desk verdict Batched-shot speedup is real, but PTSBE's pre-sampling is only exact for unitary-mixture noise, and the paper neither says so nor validates it. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16297 v1 pith:LRSJGU4D submitted 2025-04-22 quant-ph physics.comp-ph

Taylor L. Patti , Thien Nguyen , Justin G. Lietz , Alexander J. McCaskey , Brucek Khailany This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.comp-ph PACS 03.67.-a03.67.Pp
keywords quantumtrajectorysimulationpre-trajectorysamplingbatchedexecutionnoisycircuitserrorcorrectionstatevectortensornetworksmachinelearningdecoders
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

Quantum trajectory simulation approximates a noisy quantum computer by following many separate pure-state histories, each subjected to randomly sampled errors, instead of evolving an exponentially large density matrix. The paper's central claim is that this process wastes almost all of its effort: standard implementations resample errors and re-prepare the quantum state for every measurement shot, while the Pre-Trajectory Sampling with Batched Execution (PTSBE) method fixes an error set first, prepares the state once, and then draws a very large number of shots from that single state. The authors report that this turns trajectory simulation into a programmable data-collection engine, producing a 35-qubit quantum error-correction dataset of one trillion shots with about a millionfold speedup over conventional trajectory methods, and a preliminary 85-qubit tensor-network run with a sixteenfold speedup. The payoff would be large labeled noisy datasets for training machine-learning decoders, at a scale previously limited to Clifford-only simulators.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a two-phase decomposition of a noisy trajectory computation. In the Pre-Trajectory Sampling phase, a user-selected algorithm produces a list of Kraus operator sets $\{K_{\alpha_0},\dots,K_{\alpha_i}\}$—Kraus operators being the matrices describing the individual errors a noise channel can apply—together with a shot count $m_\alpha$ for each set. In the Batched Execution phase, the simulator prepares the pure state resulting from the coherent gates and the fixed error set once, then samples all $m_\alpha$ measurement outcomes from that state without re-preparation or re-sampling. Algorithm 2 is the canonical sampler: for each noise location it includes a Kraus operator with probability $p$, discards physically incompatible or duplicate combinations, and assigns a large uniform shot budget to each retained set, making the trajectory ensemble a programmable sampling distribution.

What would settle it

Take a small circuit whose noise includes amplitude damping, where the Kraus probabilities depend on the state, and compare the empirical measurement distribution produced by the standard trajectory algorithm against the distribution produced by PTSBE with the same total number of shots. If the two distributions differ beyond statistical error, the central equivalence behind the method is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is that the expensive part of trajectory simulation—state preparation—can be made to happen only once per carefully chosen error set rather than once per shot, and that the resulting efficiency gain grows almost linearly with the number of shots collected per batch. For unitary-mixture noise channels such as depolarizing channels, the probabilities of Kraus operators are independent of the quantum state, so replaying a fixed error set for many shots is exact. For general, state-dependent Kraus channels, the paper presents the same procedure without proving that one prepared state followed by many shots reproduces the original trajectory ensemble; it reports the speedups and dataset sizes as the main evidence. Concretely, it claims a mature 35-qubit statevector simulation of the 5-to-1 magic state distillation protocol with up to a millionfold speedup and one trillion collected shots, plus a preliminary 85-qubit tensor-network simulation with a sixteenfold speedup and one million collected shots.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that drawing many measurement shots from one fixed, pre-selected set of errors gives the same noisy measurement distribution as drawing a fresh set of errors for every shot; for noise channels whose Kraus probabilities depend on the state at each error location, the paper does not establish this equivalence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Large datasets from universal (non-Clifford) noisy simulators become practical, filling a gap that Clifford-only stabilizer simulators cannot cover.
  • Error provenance tags attached to each trajectory turn simulated shots into supervised training data for machine-learning decoders, with known error labels unavailable from hardware.
  • Users can target sampling toward rare or specific error combinations—probability bands, gate types, spatial correlations—for fault-tolerance studies instead of accepting black-box sampling.
  • Because the fixed-error-set state is prepared once and then sampled many times, the marginal cost per shot becomes nearly linear in shot count until the state's distinct measurement outcomes are exhausted.
  • The method parallelizes naturally both within a state preparation and across independent trajectories, so speedups from the batch mechanism multiply with GPU scaling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An immediate test the authors do not run: compare PTSBE's output distribution to exact density-matrix evolution on a few qubits with amplitude damping and other state-dependent channels; the present evidence for exactness is limited to unitary-mixture noise, and no statistical validation is reported.
  • The same batching idea could be transferred to approximate density-matrix or matrix-product-state simulators, where state preparation is also expensive relative to sampling, though the equivalence question would need revisiting per formalism.
  • Shot budgets could be made adaptive: for highly mixed or high-entropy states almost every shot is unique, but for low-entropy states duplicate outcomes dominate; a data-quality-aware scheduler would allocate shots according to measured uniqueness.
  • Decoder training on pre-sampled data may inadvertently train on the simulator's noise model rather than hardware noise; comparing decoder performance on experimental magic-state data against PTSBE-trained decoders would test the transferability of the generated labels.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces PTSBE (Pre-Trajectory Sampling with Batched Execution), a workflow that separates the stochastic choice of Kraus errors from state preparation and measurement. A sampling algorithm pre-selects sets of Kraus operators, and the batched-execution stage prepares each resulting state once and collects many measurement shots from it. The authors implement PTSBE in CUDA-Q on statevector and tensor-network backends, report roughly 10^6x and 16x improvements in shot-collection throughput on 35-qubit and 85-qubit magic-state-distillation circuits, and describe generating one trillion and one million shots, respectively. They motivate the method as a way to produce the large noisy-quantum datasets needed for training ML-based QEC decoders.

Significance. If the data produced by PTSBE are statistically equivalent to data from standard trajectory simulation, this is a valuable engineering contribution: batching shots avoids redundant state preparation, and the lightweight error metadata provides a useful supervised-learning label structure that is not available from physical devices. The raw throughput measurements in Figs. 4 and 5 are credible because repeated shot sampling from a prepared state is genuinely cheaper than re-preparing that state, and the scale of the demonstrated datasets is impressive. However, the statistical-equivalence claim is the load-bearing part of the paper, and it is not established. The paper's own Section 2.2 distinguishes state-independent unitary-mixture channels from general Kraus channels, yet Algorithm 2 samples with fixed probabilities in a way that does not reproduce either a general CPTP channel or even a unitary-mixture channel's joint outcome distribution. The paper also reports no comparison of PTSBE output against a standard trajectory or density-matrix reference. For a method whose stated purpose is training data generation, that validation is essential.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Algorithm 2] The pre-sampling loop treats each Kraus operator as an independent Bernoulli random variable, whereas the trajectory sampling in Algorithm 1 draws one normalized Kraus outcome per noise channel. For a single unitary-mixture channel with outcomes {sqrt(p_i) U_i}, Algorithm 2 can select no operator, one operator, or several operators; when several are selected, the 'compatible' check discards later operators in iteration order, introducing an order-dependent bias. The resulting error-sequence distribution is not the channel distribution, and the effective no-error probability becomes the product of (1 - p_i) over the listed operators rather than the channel's no-error weight. The authors must either replace this step with one categorical draw per channel, or prove and validate an equivalence that the manuscript currently does not provide.
  2. [Sec. 2.2 and Sec. 3.1] The paper itself states that for general Kraus channels the outcome probabilities are state-dependent, given by <psi|K_i^dagger K_i|psi>, and CUDA-Q computes them at runtime (Algorithm 1, lines 8-11). PTSBE's pre-sampling from fixed probabilities {p} can be exact only for unitary-mixture channels (K_i = sqrt(p_i) U_i). The manuscript never states this restriction; instead, Sec. 1 and Fig. 1 present the method as applicable to arbitrary noisy circuits and universal simulation. The authors should state the restriction explicitly and either limit all claims to unitary-mixture (e.g., Pauli) noise models or provide a correct procedure for general channels with controlled error.
  3. [Sec. 4, Figs. 4 and 5] Figures 4 and 5 report only shots-per-second and the fraction of unique shots; no experiment compares the PTSBE output distribution with a standard trajectory or density-matrix simulation. For a method whose stated purpose is to generate training data, distributional equivalence is the relevant benchmark. I recommend adding a quantitative comparison, such as bitstring histograms, low-order statistical moments, or decoder accuracy when trained on PTSBE data versus standard-trajectory data for the same circuit. Without this, the suitability of the trillion-shot dataset for decoder training is unverified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.1] The complexity statement for Algorithm 2, 'just ~O(|{K}|^2(p)^2) operations', appears meaningless as written; the sampling loop is O(nsamples * |{K}|). Please correct or define the expression.
  2. [Sec. 3.1] The proportional-sampling variant defines p'_alpha = p_alpha / sum_i p_i; if p_alpha is already a normalized joint probability, this division is incorrect, and the summation index is undefined. Please clarify the intended normalization.
  3. [Sec. 2.3 and Sec. 3] The word 'providence' should be 'provenance' when referring to error metadata, as in 'error providence' and the caption of Fig. 1.
  4. [Sec. 4] In the text describing Fig. 4, 'samples of 10^6 total shots are comprised of more than a 0.5 fraction of unique results' should be reworded to 'more than half' or 'a fraction greater than 0.5'.
  5. [Sec. 2.3] 'deliterious effects' is a typo for 'deleterious effects'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the speedup is a measured consequence of batching, and the main concerns are correctness/validation gaps, not tautologies.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain: PTSBE pre-selects Kraus operator sets and then draws many shots from each prepared state, and the reported speedups are wall-clock measurements of this batching strategy, not quantities fitted to data and then repackaged as predictions. The 10^6x statevector speedup is essentially the chosen batch size (10^6 to 10^7 shots per prepared state), but the paper presents this as an efficiency measurement rather than as a derived result that is assumed in its input; it is a direct engineering consequence, not a circular reduction. No parameter in the paper is fit to a subset of data and then used to predict a closely related quantity, and no uniqueness theorem or load-bearing result is imported solely from the authors' prior work. The more serious issue is a validity gap, not a circularity: Sec. 2.2 correctly states that general Kraus channels are sampled with state-dependent probability <psi|K_i^dagger K_i|psi>, whereas Algorithm 2 draws each Kraus operator with a fixed probability p and never conditions on the evolving state. This means the equivalence between PTSBE output and a standard trajectory ensemble is unproven for general CPTP channels, and the paper does not report a comparison against a reference simulation; however, that is an omitted proof or correctness concern, not a case where a conclusion reduces to its premise by construction. Since the circularity rules require exhibiting a specific reduction or a fitted input renamed as a prediction, and none is present, the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger contains no fitted physical constants. The ad hoc items are statistical assumptions about PTSBE: pre-sampled error sets are representative, repeated shots per state are equivalent to fresh trajectories, and fixed-probability sampling is exact. The first and second are unproven; the third holds only for unitary-mixture channels.

free parameters (1)
  • nshots (shots per pre-sampled Kraus set) = 10^6 for statevector benchmark; 100 for tensor network benchmark
    The headline 10^6x speedup is directly set by choosing nshots = 10^6; this is a user-selected batch size, not an independently derived constant.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A CPTP noise channel can be unravelled into a statistical ensemble of statevector trajectories.
    Standard quantum trajectory method used throughout the paper; this is the basis for replacing density matrices with an ensemble of state vectors.
  • ad hoc to paper Pre-sampling Kraus sets before propagation and drawing many shots from each prepared state yields the same noisy distribution as the standard trajectory ensemble.
    This is the core correctness assumption of PTSBE. It is stated in Sec. 3 and Fig. 1 but never proved or tested; for non-unitary Kraus channels it is generally false because outcome probabilities depend on the state.
  • ad hoc to paper All modeled noise channels are unitary mixtures (K_i = sqrt(p_i) U_i), making Kraus outcome probabilities state-independent.
    Algorithm 2 uses fixed probabilities p for each Kraus operator, which is only exact for unitary-mixture channels. The paper does not state this restriction.
  • ad hoc to paper Many measurement shots from one prepared state are equivalent to many fresh trajectory samples for training data.
    PTSBE batches shots per error set for ML data generation, but the paper does not analyze the resulting distribution shift relative to i.i.d. trajectory sampling.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Augmenting Simulated Noisy Quantum Data Collection by Orders of Magnitude Using Pre-Trajectory Sampling with Batched Execution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LRSJGU4D

@misc{pith2026250416297,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Augmenting Simulated Noisy Quantum Data Collection by Orders of Magnitude Using Pre-Trajectory Sampling with Batched Execution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LRSJGU4D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16297}
}
abstract

Classically simulating quantum systems is challenging, as even noiseless $n$-qubit quantum states scale as $2^n$. The complexity of noisy quantum systems is even greater, requiring $2^n \times 2^n$-dimensional density matrices. Various approximations reduce density matrix overhead, including quantum trajectory-based methods, which instead use an ensemble of $m \ll 2^n$ noisy states. While this method is dramatically more efficient, current implementations use unoptimized sampling, redundant state preparation, and single-shot data collection. In this manuscript, we present the Pre-Trajectory Sampling technique, increasing the efficiency and utility of trajectory simulations by tailoring error types, batching sampling without redundant computation, and collecting error information. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method with both a mature statevector simulation of a 35-qubit quantum error-correction code and a preliminary tensor network simulation of 85 qubits, yielding speedups of up to $10^6$x and $16$x, as well as generating massive datasets of one trillion and one million shots, respectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16297 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagram of PTSBE: An arbitrary noisy circuit is registered into the desired sampling algorithm for PTS, such as one [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The partitioning of a noisy quantum circuit into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Quantum circuit diagram depicting the 5-1 magic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The number of shots collected per second (green, left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The number of shots collected per minute as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Rajeev et al. Acharya. 2023. Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit. Nature 614, 7949 (Feb. 2023), 676–681. https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41586-022-05434-1

    work page 2023

  2. [3]

    Yuri Alexeev, Marwa H Farag, Taylor L Patti, Mark E Wolf, Natalia Ares, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, Simon C Benjamin, Zhenyu Cai, Zohim Chandani, Federico Fedele, et al. 2024. Artificial Intelligence for Quantum Computing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.09131 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  3. [4]

    Alberto Baiardi and Markus Reiher. 2019. Large-scale quantum dynamics with matrix product states. Journal of chemical theory and computation 15, 6 (2019), 3481–3498

    work page 2019

  4. [5]

    P Baireuther, M D Caio, B Criger, C W J Beenakker, and T E O’Brien. 2019. Neural network decoder for topological color codes with circuit level noise. New Journal of Physics 21, 1 (Jan. 2019), 013003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/aaf29e

    doi:10.1088/1367-2630/aaf29e 2019

  5. [6]

    F Battistel, C Chamberland, K Johar, R W J Overwater, F Sebastiano, L Skoric, Y Ueno, and M Usman. 2023. Real-time decoding for fault-tolerant quantum computing: progress, challenges and outlook. Nano Futures 7, 3 (Aug. 2023), 032003. https://doi.org/10.1088/2399-1984/aceba6

    doi:10.1088/2399-1984/aceba6 2023

  6. [7]

    et al Bausch

    J. et al Bausch. 2024. Learning high-accuracy error decoding for quantum pro- cessors. Nature 635 (2024), 834–840

    work page 2024

  7. [8]

    Kottmann, Tim Menke, Wai-Keong Mok, Sukin Sim, Leong-Chuan Kwek, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik

    Kishor Bharti, Alba Cervera-Lierta, Thi Ha Kyaw, Tobias Haug, Sumner Alperin-Lea, Abhinav Anand, Matthias Degroote, Hermanni Heimonen, Jakob S. Kottmann, Tim Menke, Wai-Keong Mok, Sukin Sim, Leong-Chuan Kwek, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. 2022. Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms. Rev. Mod. Phys. 94 (Feb 2022), 015004. Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1103/Re...

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys 2022

  8. [9]

    Sergey Bravyi and David Gosset. 2016. Improved classical simulation of quantum circuits dominated by Clifford gates.Physical review letters 116, 25 (2016), 250501

    work page 2016

Show all 52 references
  1. [10]

    Sergey Bravyi and Alexei Kitaev. 2005. Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas. Physical Review A 71, 2 (Feb. 2005). https: //doi.org/10.1103/physreva.71.022316

    2005 doi

  2. [11]

    Heinz-Peter Breuer and Francesco Petruccione. 2002. The theory of open quantum systems. OUP Oxford

    2002

  3. [12]

    Etienne Brion, Line Hjortshøj Pedersen, and Klaus Mølmer. 2007. Adiabatic elimination in a lambda system.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 40, 5 (2007), 1033

    2007

  4. [13]

    Francesco Campaioli, Jared H Cole, and Harini Hapuarachchi. 2024. Quantum master equations: Tips and tricks for quantum optics, quantum computing, and beyond. PRX Quantum 5, 2 (2024), 020202

    2024

  5. [14]

    Abhishek Chakraborty, Taylor L Patti, Brucek Khailany, Andrew N Jordan, and Anima Anandkumar. 2024. GPU-accelerated Effective Hamiltonian Calculator. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.09982 (2024)

    2024

  6. [15]

    Christopher Chamberland and Pooya Ronagh. 2018. Deep neural decoders for near term fault-tolerant experiments. Quantum Science and Technology 3, 4 (July 2018), 044002. https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/aad1f7

    2018 doi

  7. [16]

    Junsheng Chang, Kai Lu, Yang Guo, Yongwen Wang, Zhenyu Zhao, Libo Huang, Hongwei Zhou, Yao Wang, Fei Lei, and Biwei Zhang. 2024. A survey of compute nodes with 100 TFLOPS and beyond for supercomputers. CCF Transactions on High Performance Computing 6, 3 (2024), 243–262

    2024

  8. [17]

    Yi-Ting Chen, Collin Farquhar, and Robert M. Parrish. 2020. Low Rank Density Matrix Evolution for Noisy Quantum Circuits. arXiv:2009.06657 [quant-ph] https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.06657

    2020 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Song Cheng, Chenfeng Cao, Chao Zhang, Yongxiang Liu, Shi-Yao Hou, Pengxiang Xu, and Bei Zeng. 2021. Simulating noisy quantum circuits with matrix product density operators. Physical review research 3, 2 (2021), 023005

    2021

  10. [19]

    Sai Pavan Chitta, Tianpu Zhao, Ziwen Huang, Ian Mondragon-Shem, and Jens Koch. 2022. Computer-aided quantization and numerical analysis of supercon- ducting circuits. arXiv:2206.08320 [quant-ph] https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.08320

    2022 arXiv

  11. [20]

    A. J. Daley. 2014. Quantum trajectories and open many-body quantum systems. Advances in Physics 63 (2014), 77–149. Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.1080/00018732. 2014.933502

    2014

  12. [21]

    Jean Dalibard, Yvan Castin, and Klaus Mølmer. 1992. Wave-function approach to dissipative processes in quantum optics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 (Feb 1992), 580–583. Issue 5. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.580

    1992 doi

  13. [22]

    The CUDA-Q development team. 2025. CUDA-Q. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo. 15044243

    2025 doi

  14. [23]

    Giovanni Di Bartolomeo, Michele Vischi, Francesco Cesa, Roman Wixinger, Michele Grossi, Sandro Donadi, and Angelo Bassi. 2023. Noisy gates for simulating quantum computers. Phys. Rev. Res. 5 (Dec 2023), 043210. Issue 4. https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.043210

    2023 doi

  15. [24]

    R. Dum, P. Zoller, and H. Ritsch. 1992. Monte Carlo simulation of the atomic master equation for spontaneous emission. Phys. Rev. A 45 (Apr 1992), 4879–4887. Issue 7. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.45.4879

    1992 doi

  16. [25]

    Ryan-Anderson et al

    C. Ryan-Anderson et al. 2022. Implementing Fault-tolerant Entangling Gates on the Five-qubit Code and the Color Code. arXiv:2208.01863 [quant-ph] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2208.01863

    2022 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Harun Bayraktar et al. 2023. cuQuantum SDK: A High-Performance Library for Accelerating Quantum Science. arXiv:2308.01999 [quant-ph] https://arxiv.org/ abs/2308.01999

    2023 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Fowler, Ashley M

    Austin G. Fowler, Ashley M. Stephens, and Peter Groszkowski. 2009. High- threshold universal quantum computation on the surface code. Phys. Rev. A 80 (Nov 2009), 052312. Issue 5. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.80.052312

    2009 doi

  19. [28]

    Konstantinos Georgopoulos, Clive Emary, and Paolo Zuliani. 2021. Modeling and simulating the noisy behavior of near-term quantum computers. Phys. Rev. SC ’25, November 16–25, 2025, St. Louis, MO, USA T.L. Patti, T. Nguyen, J.G. Lietz, A.J. McCaskey, and B. Khailany A 104 (Dec ...

    2021 doi

  20. [29]

    Craig Gidney. 2021. Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator. Quantum 5 (July 2021), 497. https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-07-06-497

    2021 doi

  21. [30]

    Sukhpal Singh Gill, Adarsh Kumar, Harvinder Singh, Manmeet Singh, Kamalpreet Kaur, Muhammad Usman, and Rajkumar Buyya. 2022. Quantum computing: A taxonomy, systematic review and future directions. Software: Practice and Experience 52, 1 (2022), 66–114

    2022

  22. [31]

    Daniel Gottesman. 1998. The Heisenberg representation of quantum computers. arXiv preprint quant-ph/9807006 (1998)

    1998 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Peter Groszkowski and Jens Koch. 2021. Scqubits: a Python package for super- conducting qubits. Quantum 5 (Nov. 2021), 583. https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2021- 11-17-583

    2021 doi

  24. [33]

    Thomas Grurl, Jürgen Fuß, and Robert Wille. 2022. Noise-aware quantum circuit simulation with decision diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 42, 3 (2022), 860–873

    2022

  25. [34]

    Gian Giacomo Guerreschi, Justin Hogaboam, Fabio Baruffa, and Nicolas PD Sawaya. 2020. Intel Quantum Simulator: A cloud-ready high-performance simu- lator of quantum circuits. Quantum Science and Technology 5, 3 (2020), 034007

    2020

  26. [35]

    Hiroshi Horii, Christopher Wood, et al . 2023. Efficient techniques to gpu accelerations of multi-shot quantum computing simulations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03399 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Sergei V Isakov, Dvir Kafri, Orion Martin, Catherine Vollgraff Heidweiller, Wo- jciech Mruczkiewicz, Matthew P Harrigan, Nicholas C Rubin, Ross Thomson, Michael Broughton, Kevin Kissell, et al. 2021. Simulations of quantum circuits with approximate noise using qsim and cirq. a...

    2021 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Pavithran Iyer and David Poulin. 2013. Hardness of decoding quantum stabilizer codes. arXiv:1310.3235 [quant-ph] https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.3235

    2013 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Benjamin

    Tyson Jones, Anna Brown, Ian Bush, and Simon C. Benjamin. 2019. QuEST and High Performance Simulation of Quantum Computers. Scientific Reports 9, 1 (July 2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47174-9

    2019 doi

  30. [39]

    Andrew N Jordan and Irfan A Siddiqi. 2024. Quantum Measurement: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press

    2024

  31. [40]

    Ang Li, Omer Subasi, Xiu Yang, and Sriram Krishnamoorthy. 2020. Density matrix quantum circuit simulation via the BSP machine on modern GPU clusters. In Sc20: international conference for high performance computing, networking, storage and analysis. IEEE, 1–15

    2020

  32. [41]

    Kouhei Nakaji, Lasse Bjørn Kristensen, Jorge A. Campos-Gonzalez-Angulo, Mohammad Ghazi Vakili, Haozhe Huang, Mohsen Bagherimehrab, Christoph Gorgulla, FuTe Wong, Alex McCaskey, Jin-Sung Kim, Thien Nguyen, Pooja Rao, and Alan Aspuru-Guzik. 2024. The generative quantum eigensolv...

    2024

  33. [42]

    2010.Quantum computation and quantum information

    Michael A Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang. 2010.Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press

    2010

  34. [43]

    Pedro Sales Rodriguez, John M. Robinson, Paul Niklas Jepsen, Zhiyang He, Casey Duckering, Chen Zhao, Kai-Hsin Wu, Joseph Campo, Kevin Bagnall, Minho Kwon, Thomas Karolyshyn, Phillip Weinberg, Madelyn Cain, Simon J. Evered, Alexandra A. Geim, Marcin Kalinowski, Sophie H. Li, To...

    2024

  35. [44]

    John R Schrieffer and Peter A Wolff. 1966. Relation between the anderson and kondo hamiltonians. Physical Review 149, 2 (1966), 491

    1966

  36. [45]

    Marlan O Scully and M Suhail Zubairy. 1997. Quantum optics . Cambridge university press

    1997

  37. [46]

    Ramamurti Shankar. 2012. Principles of quantum mechanics . Springer Science & Business Media

    2012

  38. [47]

    Andrew M. Steane. 2003. Overhead and noise threshold of fault-tolerant quantum error correction. Phys. Rev. A 68 (Oct 2003), 042322. Issue 4. https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevA.68.042322

    2003

  39. [48]

    Ryan Sweke, Markus S Kesselring, Evert P L van Nieuwenburg, and Jens Eisert

  40. [49]

    George F Viamontes, Igor L Markov, and John P Hayes. 2004. Graph-based simulation of quantum computation in the density matrix representation. In Quantum Information and Computation II , Vol. 5436. SPIE, 285–296

    2004

  41. [50]

    Steven R White. 1992. Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups. Physical review letters 69, 19 (1992), 2863. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586- 024-08148-8

    1992 doi

  42. [51]

    Howard M Wiseman and Gerard J Milburn. 2009. Quantum measurement and control. Cambridge university press

    2009

  43. [52]

    Rohan Yadav, Wonchan Lee, Melih Elibol, Manolis Papadakis, Taylor Lee-Patti, Michael Garland, Alex Aiken, Fredrik Kjolstad, and Michael Bauer. 2023. Legate sparse: distributed sparse computing in python. InProceedings of the international conference for high performance comput...

    2023

  44. [2020]

    Machine Learning: Science and Technology 2, 2 (Dec

    Reinforcement learning decoders for fault-tolerant quantum computation. Machine Learning: Science and Technology 2, 2 (Dec. 2020), 025005. https://doi. org/10.1088/2632-2153/abc609

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.