Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Quantum Circuit Optimization for the Fault-Tolerance Era: Do We Have to Start from Scratch?

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper asks whether NISQ optimization routines can be reused for fault-tolerant quantum computing, and answers that they can, provided the focus shifts from total gate count to rotation-gate reduction.

desk verdict A solid empirical benchmark mapping NISQ optimization passes to FTQC resource estimates, with the caveat that all conclusions rest on Azure QRE's PSSPC cost model. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02668 v1 pith:S6R2G6P7 submitted 2025-09-02 quant-ph

Tobias Forster , Nils Quetschlich , Robert Wille This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords NISQFTQCquantumcircuitoptimizationresourceestimationrotationgatesCliffordqubit-runtimetrade-offcompilation
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

Fault-tolerant quantum computing (FTQC) will require error-corrected circuits whose qubit and gate overheads are far larger than today's NISQ devices, so circuit optimization for FTQC is a pressing problem. This paper asks whether the optimization passes already developed for NISQ circuits can be used as a starting point for FTQC optimization, rather than requiring entirely new tools. It reports that existing Qiskit and TKET optimization passes do reduce the estimated FTQC resource requirements on a set of benchmark circuits. The benefit is not uniform: reductions in rotation gates with non-Clifford angles drive the FTQC improvements, while Clifford-gate elimination helps NISQ metrics but not estimated FTQC resources. The authors conclude that NISQ routines can serve as a basis for FTQC optimization, but must be fine-tuned toward rotation-gate reduction and the qubit-runtime trade-off.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the cost asymmetry between Clifford gates and rotation gates in the resource-estimation model. The Azure Quantum Resource Estimator, built on the parallel synthesis sequential Pauli computation (PSSPC) scheme, treats Clifford gates as effectively free and therefore only accounts for logical qubits, T gates, single-qubit rotations, rotation-gate layers, CCZ gates, CCiX gates, and measurements. Because arbitrary-angle rotations are implemented by approximating them with T gates, reducing their count or rearranging their layers directly changes the estimated number of physical qubits and the runtime. This asymmetric cost structure is what makes rotation-gate reduction the dominant lever, and it also explains why Clifford-focused optimization passes show no FTQC benefit.

What would settle it

Run the same before/after optimization comparison using a resource-estimation tool or error-correction model that assigns non-negligible cost to Clifford gates; if Clifford-optimization passes then produce FTQC savings comparable to rotation-gate reductions, Finding 1 would not generalize, and the paper's central guidance would need to be limited to PSSPC-style schemes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that current NISQ optimization techniques transfer to the FTQC setting: they reduce the estimated physical-qubit count and runtime of fault-tolerant circuits, so FTQC-oriented optimizers do not have to be written from scratch. This is established by running ten optimization passes from Qiskit and TKET on benchmark circuits, estimating FTQC resources with the Azure Quantum Resource Estimator before and after each pass, and comparing relative changes. Three findings emerge: Clifford-gate optimization improves NISQ gate counts but leaves estimated FTQC resources unchanged; reducing the number of rotation gates with angles that are not multiples of $\pi/2$ produces FTQC benefits that are often much larger than the NISQ gate-count reduction; and passes that rearrange gates can leave gate counts untouched while shifting the balance between physical qubits and runtime. These findings support the paper's conclusion that existing NISQ routines should be adapted rather than replaced.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Azure Quantum Resource Estimator's cost model, with its PSSPC assumption that Clifford gates are free, accurately captures real FTQC resource requirements; if that model is unrepresentative of other error-correction schemes, the findings on which optimizations help may not generalize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • FTQC optimizer development can begin from existing NISQ passes rather than from a blank slate.
  • Reducing rotation gates with non-Clifford angles should be the first optimization target for FTQC, since it is the main source of estimated resource savings.
  • Clifford-gate optimization should be deprioritized for FTQC unless the underlying error-correction scheme charges for Clifford gates.
  • Optimization passes that rearrange gates should be applied with the specific use-case in mind, because they trade physical qubits against runtime.
  • Benchmarking for FTQC should track T and rotation counts and rotation-gate layers, not only total gate count.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This suggests that NISQ methods that specialize in reducing T-count or synthesizing rotations, rather than generic peephole passes, are the most promising candidates to port to FTQC compilers.
  • A plausible two-stage compiler strategy would be to first run generic NISQ optimization for rotation reduction, then apply an FTQC-specific layout that eliminates Clifford gates, rather than adapting a single pass end-to-end.
  • A direct extension would be to use the same estimator-based methodology to search over optimization pass orderings for a Pareto front of qubit-runtime trade-offs, which the paper does not do.
  • Because the estimator ignores Clifford gates, circuits dominated by Clifford subroutines may behave differently; rerunning the evaluation on arithmetic or stabilizer-heavy benchmarks would test whether the rotation-gate finding is universal.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper investigates whether quantum circuit optimization passes developed for the NISQ era can be reused to reduce FTQC resource requirements. The authors take 11 small benchmark circuits from MQT Bench, apply five Qiskit and five TKET optimization passes, and compare NISQ gate counts with Azure Quantum Resource Estimator outputs (physical qubits and runtime) before and after optimization. They report three findings: Clifford-gate optimization helps NISQ gate counts but not FTQC estimates; reducing non-Clifford rotation gates produces strong FTQC improvements; circuit rearrangement trades off physical qubits against runtime. Based on these results, the paper concludes that FTQC optimization does not have to be developed from scratch, but that NISQ routines should be adapted with attention to gate types and the qubit-runtime trade-off.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper provides a useful empirical starting point for FTQC compiler design and gives NISQ tool developers concrete guidance on where to invest effort. The study is honest about its proxy nature and includes an open-source implementation, an external resource estimator (which avoids circularity), multiple optimization passes, and a range of circuits. The main risk is that the conclusions are derived from a single cost model (Azure QRE with default PSSPC parameters) and a small circuit set, so the breadth of the 'do not start from scratch' answer is not yet fully established. The paper is nevertheless a credible and reproducible contribution to an emerging discussion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV.A, V.B, V.E] The central conclusion is stated without restricting its scope to the resource estimator's PSSPC model. In the PSSPC layout used by Azure QRE, Clifford gates are free by construction, so Finding 1 is a property of that accounting, and Finding 3 reflects rotation-layer scheduling under the same model. The paper should either explicitly scope the answer to PSSPC-like schemes or add a portability check (e.g., using Qualtran or pyLIQTR, or varying the QRE protocol and parameters) before saying 'we can build upon existing NISQ optimization routines.' Without this, the load-bearing generalization from Section V.E is not fully supported.
  2. [Tables I and II] The quantitative evidence is limited to relative percentage changes from a single run with default parameters and no absolute resource numbers or error estimates. For example, the qwalk-v-chain row shows -41% in #Q and -1% in t under HoareOptimizer, but without absolute values and sensitivity analysis it is difficult to tell whether the effect is robust. Please report the underlying QRE outputs and vary at least the logical error budget, qubit model, and T-gate approximation settings to confirm that the qualitative findings and the ranking of passes are stable.
  3. [Section V.C] The mechanistic claim that rotation-gate reduction drives the FTQC benefit is inferred from the QRE model rather than demonstrated directly on the circuits. The paper should report the actual numbers of rotation gates and rotation-gate layers before and after optimization for representative cases such as qft and qpe. This would make the causal claim testable and would strengthen the practical guideline concerning which NISQ passes to adapt.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section I] Capitalize 'Software Development Kit' in the phrase 'IBM's quantum Software Development Kit (SDK) Qiskit'.
  2. [Section V.B] The text refers to green and no color in the tables; ensure the printed version is self-contained when colors are not visible, for example by using symbols or boldface.
  3. [Section V.E] The phrase 'rotation gates (with angles ≠ π/2 or multiples thereof)' is ambiguous; write 'rotation gates with angles that are not multiples of π/2'.
  4. [Section IV.B] Specify whether 'TK gates' refers to TK1 gates only, and state how the custom TK1 decomposition affects the final gate-set translation for TKET circuits.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the FTQC estimates are produced by an external resource estimator and the paper's conclusions are empirical properties of that benchmark setup.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. It takes circuits from MQT Bench, applies NISQ optimization passes from Qiskit and TKET, and compares NISQ gate counts against FTQC resource estimates (physical qubits #Q and runtime t) produced by Microsoft's Azure Quantum Resource Estimator, an external tool with its own stated cost model (PSSPC, Clifford gates free). The claimed benefit of using NISQ optimizers for FTQC is an empirical observation about the relative changes in #Q and t reported in Tables I and II, not a quantity fitted from, or defined in terms of, the conclusion. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then used to predict a closely related value; no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work; no ansatz is smuggled in through self-citation. The paper's self-citations (MQT Bench [31], the MQT Handbook [43], and resource-estimation integration [34]) are used as benchmark-generation and software infrastructure, not as evidence for the central claim, and MQT Bench is a public, reproducible benchmark. The fact that rotation-gate reductions improve FTQC estimates is indeed encoded in the QRE cost model, but the contribution is measuring which existing passes achieve those reductions and characterizing the qubit-runtime trade-off, which is not circular. The scope limitation that the conclusions depend on the QRE/PSSPC model is a generalizability caveat, not a circularity.

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

The central claim depends on the Azure QRE cost model and the benchmark selection. No parameters are fitted to data; the default parameters of the estimator are inherited from the tool, not tuned by the authors.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Azure Quantum Resource Estimator's cost model, including the assumption that Clifford gates are essentially free under PSSPC, accurately estimates FTQC resource requirements.
    The paper defines its FTQC metrics through this tool; if the model is unrepresentative of actual FTQC systems, the findings about Clifford versus rotation gates would not generalize. The assumption enters in Section IV.A and drives Findings 1 and 3.
  • domain assumption The selected quantum circuits from MQT Bench are representative of typical quantum applications and FTQC workloads.
    The evaluation uses eleven circuits of 5 to 10 qubits; there is no evidence they span the features of industrial-scale FTQC circuits. This enters in Section V.A.
  • standard math The optimization passes preserve the functionality of the circuits.
    The paper assumes the optimized circuits are functionally equivalent, a standard contract for compiler optimization; it does not verify by simulation or execution.
  • domain assumption The translation of all circuits to a common target gate set does not bias the relative comparison between optimization passes.
    To enable consistent gate counting, circuits are translated to a fixed set (Section IV.B); this choice may favor or penalize certain passes and could affect the FTQC estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Circuit Optimization for the Fault-Tolerance Era: Do We Have to Start from Scratch?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S6R2G6P7

@misc{pith2026250902668,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Circuit Optimization for the Fault-Tolerance Era: Do We Have to Start from Scratch?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S6R2G6P7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02668}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum computing has made significant advancements in the last years in both hardware and software. Unfortunately, the currently available Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) hardware is still heavily affected by noise. Many optimization techniques have been developed to reduce the negative effects thereof, which, however, only works up to a certain point. Therefore, scaling quantum applications from currently considered small research examples to industrial applications requires error-correction techniques to execute quantum circuits in a fault-tolerant fashion and enter the Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computing (FTQC) era. These error-correction techniques introduce dramatic qubit overheads, leading to the requirement of tens of thousands of qubits already for toy-sized examples. Hence, quantum circuit optimization that reduces qubit overheads when shifting from the NISQ to the FTQC era is essential. This raises the question, whether we need to start from scratch, or whether current state-of-the-art optimization techniques can be used as a basis for this. To approach this question, this work investigates the effects of different optimization passes on a representative selection of quantum circuits. Since hardly any tools to automatically design and evaluate FTQC quantum circuits exist yet, we utilize resource estimation to compare the (potential) benefits gained by applying NISQ quantum circuit optimization to estimated FTQC resource requirements. The results indicate that, indeed, the estimated resource requirements for FTQC can be improved by applying NISQ quantum circuit optimization techniques. At the same time, more detailed investigations show what techniques lead to more benefits for FTQC compared to others, providing guidelines for the transfer of NISQ optimization techniques to the FTQC era.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02668 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Quantum circuit synthesis and optimization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantum computation and quantum information

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, “Quantum computation and quantum information.” Cambridge university press, 2010

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    A Structured Survey of Quantum Computing for the Financial Industry

    F. D. Albareti et al. , “A structured survey of quantum com- puting for the financial industry,” 2022. arXiv: 2204.10026

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Drug design on quantum computers,

    R. Santagati et al. , “Drug design on quantum computers,” Nature Physics, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Industry quantum computing applica- tions,

    A. Bayerstadler et al., “Industry quantum computing applica- tions,” EPJ Quantum Technology, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Quantum computing for healthcare: A review,

    R. Ur Rasool et al. , “Quantum computing for healthcare: A review,” Future Internet, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    The state of quantum computing applications in health and medicine,

    F. F. Fl ¨other, “The state of quantum computing applications in health and medicine,” Research Directions: Quantum Tech- nologies, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    A hybrid classical quantum computing approach to the satellite mission planning problem,

    N. Quetschlich, V . Koch, L. Burgholzer, and R. Wille, “A hybrid classical quantum computing approach to the satellite mission planning problem,” in Int’l Conf. on Quantum Com- puting and Engineering , 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Towards equivalence checking of classical circuits using quantum computing,

    N. Quetschlich et al. , “Towards equivalence checking of classical circuits using quantum computing,” in Int’l Conf. on Quantum Computing and Engineering , 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum circuit synthesis with diffusion models,

    F. F ¨urrutter, G. Mu ˜noz-Gil, and H. J. Briegel, “Quantum circuit synthesis with diffusion models,” Nature Machine Intelligence, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Parallelizing quantum circuit synthesis,

    O. Di Matteo and M. Mosca, “Parallelizing quantum circuit synthesis,” Quantum Science and Technology , 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    Exact synthesis of multiqubit clifford+ t circuits,

    B. Giles and P. Selinger, “Exact synthesis of multiqubit clifford+ t circuits,” Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics , 2013

    2013

  4. [12]

    Elementary quantum gate realizations for multiple-control toffoli gates,

    D. M. Miller, R. Wille, and Z. Sasanian, “Elementary quantum gate realizations for multiple-control toffoli gates,” in Inter- national Symposium on Multiple-Valued Logic , 2011

    2011

  5. [13]

    Quantum circuit optimization with deep reinforcement learning,

    T. F ¨osel, M. Y . Niu, F. Marquardt, and L. Li, “Quantum circuit optimization with deep reinforcement learning,” 2021. arXiv: 2103.07585

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Relaxed peephole optimiza- tion: A novel compiler optimization for quantum circuits,

    J. Liu, L. Bello, and H. Zhou, “Relaxed peephole optimiza- tion: A novel compiler optimization for quantum circuits,” in International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimiza- tion, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Towards optimal topology aware quantum circuit synthesis,

    M. G. Davis et al., “Towards optimal topology aware quantum circuit synthesis,” in Int’l Conf. on Quantum Computing and Engineering, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Quantum circuit optimization and transpilation via parameterized circuit instantiation,

    E. Younis and C. Iancu, “Quantum circuit optimization and transpilation via parameterized circuit instantiation,” in Int’l Conf. on Quantum Computing and Engineering , 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    On optimal subar- chitectures for quantum circuit mapping,

    T. Peham, L. Burgholzer, and R. Wille, “On optimal subar- chitectures for quantum circuit mapping,” ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing , 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    MQT QMAP: Efficient quantum circuit mapping,

    R. Wille and L. Burgholzer, “MQT QMAP: Efficient quantum circuit mapping,” in Proceedings of the 2023 International Symposium on Physical Design , 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    An abstract model and efficient routing for logical entangling gates on zoned neutral atom architectures,

    Y . Stade, L. Schmid, L. Burgholzer, and R. Wille, “An abstract model and efficient routing for logical entangling gates on zoned neutral atom architectures,” in Int’l Conf. on Quantum Computing and Engineering , 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Hybrid circuit mapping: Leveraging the full spectrum of computational capabilities of neutral atom quantum computers,

    L. Schmid, S. Park, and R. Wille, “Hybrid circuit mapping: Leveraging the full spectrum of computational capabilities of neutral atom quantum computers,” in Design Automation Conf., 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Scalable optimal layout synthesis for NISQ quantum processors,

    W.-H. Lin et al., “Scalable optimal layout synthesis for NISQ quantum processors,” in Design Automation Conf. , 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    An efficient method for quan- tum circuit placement problem on a 2-D grid,

    A. Matsuo and S. Yamashita, “An efficient method for quan- tum circuit placement problem on a 2-D grid,” inInternational Conference Reversible Computation , 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    Tackling the qubit mapping problem with permutation-aware synthesis,

    J. Liu et al. , “Tackling the qubit mapping problem with permutation-aware synthesis,” in Int’l Conf. on Quantum Computing and Engineering , 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Stabilizer codes and quantum error correc- tion

    D. Gottesman, “Stabilizer codes and quantum error correc- tion.” California Institute of Technology, 1997

    1997

  17. [25]

    Quantum computations: Algorithms and error correction,

    A. Y . Kitaev, “Quantum computations: Algorithms and error correction,” Russian Mathematical Surveys , 1997

    1997

  18. [26]

    Efficient fault-tolerant quantum computing,

    A. M. Steane, “Efficient fault-tolerant quantum computing,” Nature, 1999

    1999

  19. [27]

    Automated synthesis of fault-tolerant state preparation circuits for quantum error-correction codes,

    T. Peham et al. , “Automated synthesis of fault-tolerant state preparation circuits for quantum error-correction codes,” PRX Quantum, 2 2025

    2025

  20. [28]

    Decoding quantum color codes with MaxSAT,

    L. Berent et al. , “Decoding quantum color codes with MaxSAT,” Quantum, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Quantum computing with Qiskit,

    A. Javadi-Abhari et al. , “Quantum computing with Qiskit,”

  22. [30]

    t|ket〉: A retargetable compiler for NISQ devices,

    S. Sivarajah et al., “t|ket〉: A retargetable compiler for NISQ devices,” Quantum Science and Technology , 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    MQT Bench: Benchmarking software and design automation tools for quan- tum computing,

    N. Quetschlich, L. Burgholzer, and R. Wille, “MQT Bench: Benchmarking software and design automation tools for quan- tum computing,” Quantum, 2023, MQT Bench is available at https://www.cda.cit.tum.de/mqtbench/

    2023

  24. [32]

    Using azure quantum resource estimator for assessing performance of fault tolerant quantum computation,

    W. van Dam, M. Mykhailova, and M. Soeken, “Using azure quantum resource estimator for assessing performance of fault tolerant quantum computation,” in Workshops of The International Conference on High Performance Computing, Network, Storage, and Analysis , 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Assessing requirements to scale to practical quantum advantage,

    M. E. Beverland et al. , “Assessing requirements to scale to practical quantum advantage,” 2022. arXiv: 2211.07629

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Utilizing resource estimation for the development of quantum comput- ing applications,

    N. Quetschlich, M. Soeken, P. Murali, and R. Wille, “Utilizing resource estimation for the development of quantum comput- ing applications,” in Int’l Conf. on Quantum Computing and Engineering, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Quantum gates,

    C. P. Williams and C. P. Williams, “Quantum gates,” Explo- rations in Quantum Computing , 2011

    2011

  28. [36]

    Quantum error correction: An introductory guide,

    J. Roffe, “Quantum error correction: An introductory guide,” Contemporary Physics, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    A single quantum cannot be cloned,

    W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek, “A single quantum cannot be cloned,” Nature, 1982

    1982

  30. [38]

    Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation,

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cle- land, “Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation,” Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 2012

    2012

  31. [39]

    A game of surface codes: Large-scale quantum computing with lattice surgery,

    D. Litinski, “A game of surface codes: Large-scale quantum computing with lattice surgery,” Quantum, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit,

    “Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit,” Nature, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations,

    V . Bergholm et al., “Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations,” 2022. arXiv: 1811. 04968

    2022

  34. [42]

    Berkeley quantum synthesis toolkit (BQSKit) v1,

    E. Younis et al. , “Berkeley quantum synthesis toolkit (BQSKit) v1,” https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1785933, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    The MQT Handbook: A Summary of Design Automation Tools and Software for Quantum Computing,

    R. Wille et al., “The MQT Handbook: A Summary of Design Automation Tools and Software for Quantum Computing,” in Int’l Conf. on Quantum Software , 2024. arXiv: 2405.17543, A live version of this document is available at https://mqt. readthedocs.io

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Expressing and analyzing quantum algorithms with qualtran,

    M. P. Harrigan et al. , “Expressing and analyzing quantum algorithms with qualtran,” 2024. arXiv: 2409.04643

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Obenland et al., Pyliqtr, version v1.3.6, 2025

    K. Obenland et al., Pyliqtr, version v1.3.6, 2025

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.