Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Quantum Brush: A quantum computing-based tool for digital painting

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quantum Brush is an open-source digital painting tool that turns strokes into quantum circuits and maps the measured states back to colour, so the visuals are shaped by real quantum dynamics.

desk verdict A working open-source quantum painting tool with honest hardware runs, but the soft spot is the missing classical baseline for attributing the aesthetics to quantum dynamics. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01442 v1 pith:NCMSXKPK submitted 2025-09-01 cs.GR cs.ETcs.MMphysics.soc-phquant-ph

João S. Ferreira , Arianna Crippa , Astryd Park , Daniel Bultrini , Pierre Fromholz , Roman Lipski , Karl Jansen , James R. Wootton This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GRcs.ETcs.MMphysics.soc-phquant-ph
keywords quantumartdigitalpaintingNISQhardwarealgorithmsHSLcolourencodingBlochsphereno-cloningtheoremopen-sourcetool
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 Brush is an open-source digital painting tool that turns each brush stroke into a quantum circuit and runs that circuit on a real quantum processor. Four brushes are presented, each built on a different quantum effect: entanglement-based colour blending, time evolution of a Heisenberg spin chain, information erasure through an amplitude-damping channel, and the no-cloning theorem realised by an asymmetric quantum cloning circuit. After the circuit runs, the qubits are measured and the resulting expectation values are decoded into new hue and luminosity values, repainting the pixels under the stroke. The authors deliberately omit error mitigation, so the noise of today's quantum hardware becomes part of the aesthetic. The paper's central claim is that this pipeline produces visual output that is genuinely shaped by quantum dynamics, giving artists a new medium in which the physics of the device participates in the image.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the HSL-to-qubit encoding |(φ,θ)⟩ = Rz(φ)Ry(θ)|0⟩ (Eq. A1), which puts hue and luminosity on the Bloch sphere so that quantum gates act directly on colour. On top of this encoding, four circuits carry the argument: the Aquarela circuit's sequential controlled rotations with a brush ancilla; the Heisenbrush's Trotterised Heisenberg evolution (using first-order Trotter-Suzuki decomposition with XX, YY, ZZ and field rotations); the Smudge circuit's shared-ancilla amplitude-damping/pumping channel; and the Collage circuit's universal asymmetric quantum cloning built from four CNOT gates plus a state-preparation unitary. Each circuit's measured Pauli expectation values

What would settle it

A reader could take one of the brush circuits, replace the quantum hardware with a classical pseudo-random number generator that feeds the same decoding equations (Eq. A4 and the brush-specific maps, Eqs. 11 and 19), and compare the resulting images side by side; if the classical-random images are indistinguishable from the hardware images, the claim that the visuals are shaped by quantum dynamics would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a working quantum-native colour space and a set of four brush circuits that operate on it. In this colour space, hue and luminosity of an image region are mapped to the polar and azimuthal angles of a single qubit via |(φ,θ)⟩ = Rz(φ)Ry(θ)|0⟩, leaving saturation untouched. Each brush then applies a different quantum mechanism: Aquarela entangles the brush colour with the canvas colours through sequential controlled rotations; Heisenbrush simulates the time evolution of a one-dimensional Heisenberg model and uses the measured magnetisation to shift the HSL values; Smudge feeds all stroke colours through a shared ancilla that implements an amplitude-damping/pumping chan

Load-bearing premise

The paper does not compare the quantum-hardware output against a baseline where the same colour-decoding maps are driven by classically generated random numbers, so the claim that the novel visuals come from the quantum dynamics rather than from the chosen decoding maps rests on an untested assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, the Quantum Brush is a working open-source tool in which the visual output is shaped by the quantum circuits actually executed, not by classical image filters.
  • Each brush demonstrates a concrete route from a quantum principle to a visual effect: Aquarela maps entanglement to colour blending, Heisenbrush maps time-evolved magnetisation to colour shifts, Smudge maps information erasure to cascading colour changes, and Collage maps the no-cloning trade-off to copy fidelity.
  • Because the authors deliberately run without error mitigation, the hardware's intrinsic noise becomes a deliberate compositional parameter, available to any artist using the tool.
  • The snapshot-based stroke manager lets a user re-run the same stroke until a satisfying outcome, meaning the stochasticity of quantum computing is harnessed inside an interactive workflow.
  • The quantum-native colour space, in which saturation is deliberately left unchanged, offers a principled way to apply quantum operations to colour without RGB gamut overflow.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper does not include a baseline run in which the same decoding maps are fed with classically generated random numbers, the claim that the aesthetics come from quantum dynamics rather than from the hand-designed maps remains an inference the reader must test for themselves.
  • The demonstrated implementations use at most 10 qubits (Heisenbrush) and 3 qubits (Collage), so the soft guideline of a classically intractable scaling regime is not exercised in the shown results; a testable extension would be to scale both brushes to the maximum circuit width a current device supports and compare visual output.
  • A direct extension would be to swap the quantum circuit for a classical circuit that applies the same unitary evolution using matrix multiplication and then samples from the same final distribution—comparing the resulting images would isolate the contribution of the hardware's noise and the measurement randomness from the ideal quantum dynamics.
  • The HSL-to-qubit mapping could be reused by other quantum generative art tools, not only for brushes but for any effect that needs to apply quantum logic to colour fields.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. Quantum Brush is an open-source digital painting application that maps brush strokes and selected regions to small quantum circuits. Four brushes are presented: Aquarela (single-qubit HL encoding with an ancilla-driven color-steering interaction), Heisenbrush (Trotterized 1D Heisenberg evolution whose magnetization is mapped to color), Smudge (an amplitude-damping/pumping cascade built from a shared ancilla), and Collage (an asymmetric 1→2 quantum cloning circuit whose Pauli expectation values are mapped back to singular values used in image reconstruction). The authors show results from a noiseless simulator and from IQM's Sirius device, without error mitigation, and include an artist's qualitative account of using the tool. The paper's central claim is that the visual output is genuinely shaped by quantum dynamics, not merely by classical post-processing of measurement statistics.

Significance. If the central claim is supported, the paper is a useful contribution to quantum generative art: it provides a usable open-source tool, concrete circuits for four different quantum effects, hardware demonstrations on current NISQ devices, and a thoughtful account of artistic workflow. The paper is also honest about many of its constraints, such as the 10-qubit cap and the deliberate omission of error mitigation. However, the manuscript's own stated criterion--that the algorithms must admit a classically intractable scaling regime--is not met by any presented example, and, more importantly, the attribution of the aesthetic to quantum dynamics is not tested against classical alternatives. The strengths are the open-source release, the clear circuit diagrams, and the fact that genuine hardware executions are shown; the weakness is the absence of a control experiment that isolates the quantum contribution from the hand-designed decoding maps.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II (Aquarela, Heisenbrush, Collage) and App. A] The paper's central claim that the art is 'shaped through quantum mechanics' (Introduction) is not isolated from the hand-designed decoding maps. Each brush reduces the quantum output to a few expectation values and then applies a deterministic, nonlinear classical map: Eq. (11) for Heisenbrush, Eq. (19) for Collage, and Eq. (A4) for Aquarela/Smudge. These maps were chosen ad hoc and the paper provides no control experiment in which the quantum circuit is replaced by a classical random process with the same encoding/decoding and the same measurement statistics. Without such a baseline, the reported differences between simulator and Sirius, and between brushes, could be produced by the decoding functions rather than by quantum dynamics. I request a control: rerun the key examples with random Bloch vectors or random expectation values (e.g., uniformly sampled on the Bloch sphere, or classi
  2. [Sec. II, 'soft guidelines', and Sec. II.B.3] The first guideline states that 'the algorithms must admit a scaling regime where classical simulation becomes intractable, requiring a true QPU.' The presented implementations do not enter that regime: Heisenbrush is capped at 10 qubits and 10 Trotter steps, Smudge uses N+1 qubits on small demonstrated examples, and Collage uses three qubits. All of these circuits are trivially simulable on a classical computer. No analysis is given of how large N must be, what the classical simulation cost would be, or why the NISQ demonstrations are relevant to the intractable regime. Since the only hardware runs are at classically easy sizes, the stated reason for requiring a QPU is unsupported. Please either provide a concrete scalability analysis (resource estimates and, ideally, a larger demonstration) or explicitly remove this constraint from the claimed design guidelines.
  3. [App. A, Eq. (A4)] The reconstruction formula tan θ = sqrt(⟨X⟩²+⟨Y⟩²)/⟨Z⟩ is not valid as written for states with ⟨Z⟩<0. Under the mapping θ = π L, any color with luminosity L>0.5 gives a negative cos θ, and the principal arctangent returns θ in the wrong quadrant. Unless the authors use atan2 or an explicit branch correction, the reconstructed luminosity will be wrong or ambiguous for dark colors. This is load-bearing for Aquarela and Smudge, whose final colors are reconstructed using Eq. (A4). The text should state the branch handling and verify that the displayed dark tones are not artifacts of this ambiguity.
  4. [Sec. II.D.3, Eq. (19)] The Collage decoding map is specified only by two endpoint properties (perfect recovery for a unit Bloch vector pointing along log S, and uniform singular values for a maximally mixed state). The paper does not provide a design principle for the interpolation, nor a sensitivity check. Since the visual outcome of the Collage brush is largely determined by this equation, the claims about 'fidelity' and 'no-cloning' being visualized should be backed by at least a brief rationale for Eq. (19), or by a comparison with simpler classical interpolation schemes. This issue is related to the missing classical-control experiment in Major Comment 1, but Eq. (19) deserves explicit justification on its own.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II.B.3, Eq. (11)] The notation 'mod 1' is used for all three HSL components. For hue, modular arithmetic is natural; for saturation and luminosity, a component-wise modulo creates discontinuities at the boundary that are not discussed. Please clarify whether the modulo is applied component-wise and how hue wrap-around vs. luminosity/saturation clipping are handled.
  2. [Sec. IV and Fig. 11] The artist's experience is qualitative and valuable, but it would be strengthened by a short description of the actual parameter ranges used (brush strengths, stroke counts, number of hardware shots) and how many runs were discarded before a satisfying result was obtained. This would help readers calibrate the reproducibility of the workflow.
  3. [Sec. II.B.3 and Fig. 6] The circuit diagram and equations are mostly consistent, but the sign conventions in Eqs. (4)-(8) should be stated more explicitly (e.g., Rxx(−Δt)=e^{iΔtXX/2} while Rx(Δt)=e^{-iΔtX/2}). A reader may otherwise wonder whether the overall Trotter step has the correct sign. This is a presentation issue, not a correctness issue.
  4. [Sec. III] The description of the Stroke Manager says 'supports running each brush concurrently' and snapshots are used, but it is not clear whether strokes from different brushes can be interleaved or whether the snapshot is taken per stroke or per brush. Please clarify the workflow.
  5. [Sec. V] The concluding statement that quantum dynamics provide 'an artistic advantage over machine learning approaches' is not supported by the evidence in this paper. I recommend softening this claim or adding a more nuanced discussion, since the paper does not compare against any machine-learning-based painting tool.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a tool demonstration built from standard quantum operations, with no fitted predictions and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

Quantum Brush is a demonstration/tool paper rather than a derivation of quantitative predictions. The four brushes map strokes to circuits composed of standard, externally established operations: Trotterized Heisenberg evolution, an amplitude-damping channel on an ancilla, and universal asymmetric quantum cloning. The encoding (Eq. A1) and decoding maps (Eqs. 10-11, 18-19, A4) are chosen by the authors, but no target output is fitted and no quantity is 'predicted' from fitted parameters; these maps transform measured observables into colors, and the resulting visuals are presented as artistic examples rather than as validated predictions. The only self-citations (refs [7,8]) are background in the introduction and a pointer in the conclusion ('as also explored in [7]'); they are not invoked as proof of any central premise. The claimed scaling regime (Sec. II) is not exercised at the 10- or 3-qubit sizes used, and the absence of a classical baseline weakens attribution of the aesthetics to quantum dynamics, but these are methodological/correctness concerns, not circularity. Therefore no circular step is identifiable.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum-mechanical tools, on arbitrary mapping choices from measurement data to color, and on an unverified scaling guideline. There are no new physical particles, forces, or dimensions. The most important unpaid items are the hand-designed color-decoding maps and the assumption that the small demonstrated circuits are a meaningful stand-in for a classically intractable regime.

free parameters (6)
  • Aquarela brush coupling angle = pi/3
    Sec. II A 3 states the angle was 'chosen to yield the best artistic outcomes' with the constraint that it not be close to 0 or pi. It is a hand-tuned aesthetic constant, not derived.
  • Brush strength parameter gamma = user-controlled; gamma in [0,1] for Aquarela and Heisenbrush, gamma in [0,pi] for Smudge
    The continuous control that interpolates between no quantum effect and full effect; it enters the circuits in Figs. 4 and 8 and Eq. (11).
  • Heisenbrush coupling and field strengths = ±1/2 for exchange couplings and transverse/longitudinal fields
    Sec. II B 3: 'we chose the arbitrary value of ±1/2'. These arbitrary Hamiltonian constants shape the entire Heisenbrush color evolution.
  • Heisenbrush Trotter time step Delta t = 0.1
    Sec. II B 3 fixes the time step at 0.1; it affects the sequence of generated colors and is not derived from any criterion.
  • Heisenbrush qubit and step caps = 10 qubits and 10 time steps
    Chosen for NISQ latency; the cap keeps the system at a classically simulable size, undercutting the 'intractable scaling' guideline in Sec. II.
  • Collage fidelity parameter s0 = user-defined; s1 is chosen to maximize paste fidelity under Eq. (17)
    Sec. II D 3: standard UAQC parameters, user-selected rather than derived, control the fidelity trade-off between copy and original.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Validity of the no-cloning theorem and the universal asymmetric quantum cloning transformation (Eqs. 14-17).
    Collage brush depends on the UAQC protocol from refs [23,24].
  • standard math First-order Trotter-Suzuki decomposition (Eq. 3) approximates Heisenberg time evolution.
    Heisenbrush uses Trotter steps with Delta t = 0.1; standard, but the approximation error is not discussed.
  • domain assumption HSL hue and luminosity can be encoded in a pure single-qubit state while saturation is left classical (Eq. A1).
    Appendix A: saturation is not represented in the quantum state, so the tool does not map full color information into the quantum process.
  • ad hoc to paper The post-processing maps from quantum expectation values to HSL or singular values (Eq. 11, Eq. 19) produce the intended aesthetic.
    These maps are chosen by the authors; no principle or benchmark justifies them, and no classical-baseline comparison shows that the apparent 'quantumness' survives the mapping.
  • domain assumption NISQ hardware noise is treated as a desirable aesthetic component rather than an error to be corrected.
    Sec. V states the authors 'deliberately chose to omit error mitigation' and treat hardware noise as 'part of the underlying quantum aesthetics'.
  • ad hoc to paper The brushes admit a scaling regime where classical simulation is intractable, requiring a true QPU.
    Stated as a soft guideline in Sec. II, but not demonstrated for the presented implementations, which use at most 10 qubits and are classically simulable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Brush: A quantum computing-based tool for digital painting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NCMSXKPK

@misc{pith2026250901442,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Brush: A quantum computing-based tool for digital painting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NCMSXKPK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01442}
}
read the original abstract

We present Quantum Brush, an open-source digital painting tool that harnesses quantum computing to generate novel artistic expressions. The tool includes four different brushes that translate strokes into unique quantum algorithms, each highlighting a different way in which quantum effects can produce novel aesthetics. Each brush is designed to be compatible with the current noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) devices, as demonstrated by executing them on IQM's Sirius device.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01442 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: , consists of the following operations: • Two-qubit interaction terms: For each neigh￾boring pair (n, n+ 1), we apply three 2-qubits gates that correspond to the exponentials of the Pauli in￾teraction terms Rxx(−∆t) = e i∆tXˆnXˆn+1/2 , (4) Ryy(−∆t) = e i∆tYˆnYˆn+1/2 , …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: It uses a single ancilla qubit (A), prepared in a shared state with P and involves two steps. The first preparation step entangles A and P using the transfor￾mation UP such that: UP |00⟩ = r s0 + s1 2 |00⟩ + r 1 − s0 2 |01⟩ + r 1 − s1 2 |11⟩, (15) where s0,1 are two i…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    With Aquarela, the colours are not only blended, but entangled

    Motivation The Aquarela brush is inspired by the translucent effect of a watercolour painting. With Aquarela, the colours are not only blended, but entangled. Each painted line becomes a quantum interaction, where the effect of the brush depends not only on its path but also on the state of the canvas beneath it. This process results in an evolution in wh...

    work page

  2. [2]

    2, painted using watercolours

    Outcome To showcase the Aquarela brush, we applied it to a self-portrait by Paul C´ ezanne (1895), shown in Fig. 2, painted using watercolours. We selected various tones of blue and purple for the brush, generating strokes of various sizes that weave into the texture of the painting while producing subtle changes in tones. These variations arise from the ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    This stroke is then divided into N segments, with each segment corresponding to a single qubit

    Implementation The user begins by selecting a desired colour for the brush and executes a continuous brush stroke on the can- vas. This stroke is then divided into N segments, with each segment corresponding to a single qubit. For each segment, we compute the mean HSL values of the under- lying pixels. The hue (H) and luminosity (L) are then mapped to the...

    work page 1906

  4. [4]

    Motivation The idea behind the Heisenbrush is to generate vi- sual patterns based on the simulated temporal evolution of quantum observables. Rather than relying on clas- sical randomness or pre-programmed stroke behaviour, Heisenbrush draws its expressive power from the be- haviour of quantum systems evolving under well-defined quantum time evolutions. H...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Outcome Here we present an example of the application of the Heisenbrush. Fig. 5 depicts how this brush integrates har- moniously with the vivid, expressive palette of the fauvist painting L’homme ` a la tulipe by Robert Delaunay. To create the final outcome, we used two different types of the Heisenbrush: discrete and continuous. In the discrete 4 Rxx(−∆...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Implementation The brush behaviour is governed by the magnetiza- tion of a one-dimensional spin- 1 2 Heisenberg model with a magnetic field and periodic boundary conditions. The Hamiltonian, which describes the energy of the system, for a chain with N spins reads ˆH = 1 2 NX n=1 − ˆXn ˆXn+1 − ˆYn ˆYn+1 − ˆZn ˆZn+1 + ˆXn + ˆZn , (1) where we chose the arbi...

    work page 1953

  7. [7]

    Motivation The Smudge brush explores the mechanisms of infor- mation erasure in quantum systems. As the brush glides across the canvas, it first attempts to erase the informa- tion about the colour, but in doing so, it creates a source of new entangled colours that are transferred to the re- mainder of the brush stroke

    work page

  8. [8]

    7, we use a single run of Smudge (composed of 7 strokes) to create shapes with new colours

    Outcome In our interpretation of Matisse’s L’escargot, Fig. 7, we use a single run of Smudge (composed of 7 strokes) to create shapes with new colours. Each stroke was applied on a different canvas colour, leading to a highly entangled state that maximizes the colour expressivity and variabil- ity. We applied a maximum strength and did not invert luminosi...

    work page

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    For each stroke, we compute the average hue and luminosity and map it to the single-qubit state |(ϕ, θ)⟩, see App

    Implementation The user starts by creating N separate strokes on the canvas. For each stroke, we compute the average hue and luminosity and map it to the single-qubit state |(ϕ, θ)⟩, see App. A. We also initialize an ancilla qubit in the |0⟩ state, for a total of N + 1 qubits....

  2. [10]

    It states that it is impossible to make an arbitrarily faithful copy of an unknown quantum state without completely collapsing the original

    Motivation The motivation behind the Collage brush is to visualize one of the most important intrinsic limitations imposed by quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem. It states that it is impossible to make an arbitrarily faithful copy of an unknown quantum state without com...

  3. [11]

    9, we demonstrate how the Collage brush can be used to create a serial art motif from a sequence of artworks, in particular, Les Saisons by Alfons Maria Mucha [22], 1896

    Outcome In Fig. 9, we demonstrate how the Collage brush can be used to create a serial art motif from a sequence of artworks, in particular, Les Saisons by Alfons Maria Mucha [22], 1896. From top left to top right, we ap- ply the Collage effect to copy one season at a time to ...

  4. [12]

    Instead, the |ψ⟩C |0⟩A |0⟩P UP FIG

    Implementation Unlike other brushes, the Collage brush does not op- erate through a click-and-drag movement. Instead, the |ψ⟩C |0⟩A |0⟩P UP FIG. 10. Universal asymmetric quantum cloning cir- cuit implementation. The UP transformation prepares the cloned qubit (P) and a necessa...

  5. [13]

    Morales, El realismo cu´ antico, Conference talk at the Graduate Center, Columbia University, New York (2003)

    G. Morales, El realismo cu´ antico, Conference talk at the Graduate Center, Columbia University, New York (2003)

    2003

  6. [14]

    E. R. Miranda, ed., Quantum Computer Music: Founda- tions, Methods and Advanced Concepts (Springer Inter- national Publishing, 2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Clemente, A

    G. Clemente, A. Crippa, K. Jansen, and C. T¨ uys¨ uz, New Directions in Quantum Music: concepts for a quantum keyboard and the sound of the Ising model, arXiv:2204.00399 [quant-ph] (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    P. V. Itabora ´ ı, T. Schw¨ agerl, M. A. Y´ a˜ nez, A. Crippa, K. Jansen, E. R. Miranda, and P. Thomas, Variational quantum harmonizer: Generating chord progressions and other sonification methods with the vqe algorithm, in 2nd International Symposium on Quantum Computing and ...

    2023

  9. [17]

    P. V. Itabora ´ ı, P. Thomas, A. Crippa, K. Jansen, T. Schw¨ agerl, and M. A. Y´ a˜ nez, Developing a Framework for Sonifying Variational Quantum Algorithms: Impli- cations for Music Composition, arXiv:2409.07104 [cs.SD] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Lioret, Quantum Art (The Eurographics Association, 2016)

    A. Lioret, Quantum Art (The Eurographics Association, 2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    Crippa, Y

    A. Crippa, Y. Chai, O. C. Hamido, P. Itaborai, and K. Jansen, Quantum computing inspired paintings: reinterpreting classical masterpieces, arXiv:2411.09549 [quant-ph] (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    J. S. Ferreira, P. Fromholz, H. Shaji, and J. R. Woot- ton, Level generation with quantum reservoir computing, arXiv:2505.13287 [cs.AI] (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Qiskit, Making The Invisible Visible: A New Exhibition of Quantum Art (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Lipski and I

    R. Lipski and I. Research, Quantum blur (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Baumgarten, Quantum jungle: Playful installation vi- sualizing quantum physics (2023)

    R. Baumgarten, Quantum jungle: Playful installation vi- sualizing quantum physics (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    DESY, Quantum computers and art: How and why (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computa- tion and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edi- tion (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    T. G. Wong, Introduction to classical and quantum com- puting (Rooted Grove, 2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Quantum, Quantum brush, https://github.com/moth-quantum/QuantumBrush

    M. Quantum, Quantum brush, https://github.com/moth-quantum/QuantumBrush

  20. [28]

    C´ ezanne, Self portrait, Tate Modern (1895)

    P. C´ ezanne, Self portrait, Tate Modern (1895)

  21. [29]

    Delaunay, L’homme ` a la tulipe (portrait de jean met- zinger) (1906)

    R. Delaunay, L’homme ` a la tulipe (portrait de jean met- zinger) (1906)

    1906

  22. [30]

    M. Suzuki, Generalized trotter’s formula and systematic approximants of exponential operators and inner deriva- tions with applications to many-body problems, Commu- nications in Mathematical Physics 51, 183 (1976)

    1976

  23. [31]

    H. F. Trotter, On the product of semi-groups of operators, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 10, 545 (1959)

    1959

  24. [32]

    Matisse, The snail, Tate Modern (1953)

    H. Matisse, The snail, Tate Modern (1953)

    1953

  25. [33]

    J.-F. Chen, Y. Li, and H. Dong, Simulating finite-time isothermal processes with superconducting quantum cir- cuits, Entropy 23, 10.3390/e23030353 (2021)

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    Mucha, Les saisons, MAH Mus´ ee d’art et d’histoire, Ville de Gen` eve (1896)

    A. Mucha, Les saisons, MAH Mus´ ee d’art et d’histoire, Ville de Gen` eve (1896)

  27. [35]

    N. J. Cerf, Pauli cloning of a quantum bit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4497 (2000)

    2000

  28. [36]

    many-to-many

    I. Ghiu, Asymmetric quantum telecloning of d-level sys- tems and broadcasting of entanglement to different loca- tions using the “many-to-many” communication proto- col, Phys. Rev. A 67, 012323 (2003)

    2003

  29. [37]

    Reas and B

    C. Reas and B. Fry, Processing: programming for the media arts, AI Soc. 20, 526–538 (2006)

    2006

  30. [38]

    Chayka, Filterworld: How Algorithms Flattened Cul- ture (Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2024)

    K. Chayka, Filterworld: How Algorithms Flattened Cul- ture (Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.