Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 80 references

CircuitTree shows that approximate quantum state preparation can be solved with tree-based Bayesian optimization over a layerwise parameter decomposition, converging to the optimal distribution at rate O(t^(−1/d)) and empirically reducing g

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 13:27 UTC pith:VKRBD55U

load-bearing objection Useful empirical method for approximate state preparation, but the convergence theorem is unproven; treat CircuitTree as a heuristic, not a guaranteed optimizer. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2510.00145 v4 pith:VKRBD55U submitted 2025-09-30 quant-ph

Domain-Aware Probability Sampling for Hybrid Quantum Systems using Bayesian Optimization

Nicholas S. DiBrita , Jason Han , Krishna Bhatia , Younghyun Cho , Hengrui Luo , Tirthak Patel This is my paper
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.-a
keywords approximate quantum state preparationBayesian optimizationgradient-boosted regression treeslayerwise parameter decompositiontotal variation distancevariational quantum circuitshybrid quantum-classical algorithmconvergence guarantees
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

CircuitTree tackles approximate quantum state preparation: finding a short parameterized circuit whose measurement distribution matches a target state, without full state reconstruction or analytic gradients. The paper argues this is naturally a black-box optimization problem over a non-smooth, high-dimensional loss (total variation distance), and that gradient-boosted regression trees are a better surrogate model than Gaussian processes, which assume smoothness and scale badly. Its central theoretical claim is Theorem 4.7: under Lipschitzness, bounded noise, and a variance-floor condition, the optimization converges to the optimal distribution, with regret shrinking at rate O(t^(−1/d)). Empirical results on random circuits, amplitude-encoded states, and VQE workloads show 2–3× lower total variation distance while using 40–60% fewer two-qubit gates than existing synthesis approaches.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that approximate quantum state preparation can be reliably performed by a surrogate-guided, tree-based Bayesian optimization framework that exploits the layered architecture of variational circuits. The key theoretical result states that, under three assumptions — Lipschitz continuity of the loss, bounded centered noise, and a variance floor at all unqueried points — the sequence of parameters produced by the layerwise distributed algorithm satisfies lim E[f(θ_t)] = f* in the noise-free case, with a convergence rate of O(t^(−1/d)). The proof works by showing that the variance floor forces the query sequence to become dense in the parameter space, after which Lips

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the combination of a gradient-boosted regression tree (GBRT) surrogate, which captures non-smooth discontinuities and scales linearly with samples, and a layerwise parameter decomposition that splits the circuit parameters into blocks aligned with the hardware-native layered ansatz. Each layer is optimized in parallel by its own local surrogate, with periodic synchronization of a shared global parameter vector. The theoretical engine is a variance-floor argument: unqueried points must fall in an empty leaf of at least one tree, guaranteeing ensemble variance remains positive and driving the covering radius of the query set to zero; Lipschitz continuity then yields th

Load-bearing premise

The convergence proof depends on the assumption that every parameter point the optimizer has not yet queried falls into an empty leaf of at least one tree, so the surrogate's variance never collapses to zero in unexplored regions; the paper does not prove that its layerwise distributed algorithm actually enforces this condition.

What would settle it

Run the layerwise algorithm while logging, at each round, the covering radius and the ensemble variance at points in unexplored regions. If after t iterations there exists any open ball of radius r in the parameter space containing no queried point, while t exceeds (C_d D^d / r)^d, then the geometric covering-radius bound (and the resulting O(t^(−1/d)) regret rate) is falsified. More directly: if a point assigned to an empty leaf of every tree can be found after training, the variance floor η is zero and Lemma B.2 fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Approximate state preparation can be performed without access to analytic gradients or full unitary descriptions, relying only on measurement statistics, which is directly applicable to noisy near-term hardware.
  • The layerwise distributed optimization strategy gives a principled form of block-coordinate descent that is more stable than random subspace splitting and preserves global convergence guarantees.
  • Modest shot budgets (around 250 measurements) suffice for stable convergence, meaning the approach is practical under hardware measurement constraints.
  • In noise-free settings, the convergence guarantee implies the algorithm is no-regret, with cumulative regret growing as O(T^(1−1/d)), and the rate sharpens to O(log T) in one dimension.
  • The framework provides the first stated provable convergence guarantees for approximate state preparation using non-Gaussian surrogates, opening a path for other structured black-box quantum optimization problems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: The convergence proof analyzes a full-space UCB acquisition rule, while the algorithm uses layerwise expected improvement; if the layerwise loop introduces correlations across layers that break the variance-floor assumption, the O(t^(−1/d)) rate may not hold for the implemented method — a direct empirical check is to monitor the per-layer covering radius.
  • Inference: The O(t^(−1/d)) rate is slow in high dimensions, so the practical advantage of layerwise decomposition is not just parallelism but a drastic reduction of effective dimensionality; this suggests further gains from hierarchical or additive structure in the circuit parameter space.
  • Inference: The same surrogate-guided, structure-aware loop could be extended beyond total variation distance to other distributional objectives, such as Wasserstein distances or quantum fidelity, and to continuous-variable circuits whose parameter spaces have a similar layered structure.
  • Inference: If the variance-floor assumption is intentionally violated, for example by forcing all trees to share similar splits so that some regions have zero variance, the exploration argument collapses and queries will cluster, yielding a concrete experimental falsifier of the convergence claim.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes CircuitTree, a Bayesian-optimization framework for approximate quantum state preparation that minimizes total variation distance between the output distribution of a parameterized circuit and that of a target state. The method uses gradient-boosted regression trees as surrogates, a layerwise decomposition of the parameter space into independently optimized subspaces, and expected-improvement acquisition. The paper claims a convergence guarantee with an O(t^{-1/d}) rate (Theorem 4.7), and reports empirical improvements over BQSKit on IBM hardware in terms of TVD, gate count, and circuit depth. Appendices provide the convergence proof and experimental methodology.

Significance. If the theoretical and empirical claims were sound, CircuitTree would be a useful, scalable alternative to Gaussian-process BO for non-smooth quantum objectives, and the layerwise decomposition would be a practical way to exploit circuit structure. The paper has genuine strengths: it is open-sourced, evaluated on real hardware, and addresses a relevant problem. However, the central convergence theorem is not established as stated, and the main experimental comparison uses a baseline that solves a different optimization problem. As it stands, the contribution is best understood as an engineering heuristic with promising but inconclusive empirical support.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B.3, Eq. (3)] The inequality f(θ_t) ≤ f(θ_{i(t)}) + Lρ_{t−1} ≤ f* + Lρ_{t−1} is invalid. The covering radius only guarantees that some previously sampled point is within ρ_{t−1} of the current query θ_t; it does not guarantee that this particular point attains the global minimum. A previously sampled point can be close to θ_t in parameter space while being arbitrarily far from the global minimum in function value. Consequently, E[r_t] ≤ L (C_d D^d)^{1/d} t^{−1/d} + σ does not follow, and Theorem 4.7 and the O(t^{−1/d}) rate are unsupported.
  2. [Appendix B vs. Algorithm 1] The proof analyzes the full-space acquisition rule θ_{t+1} = argmin μ_t(θ) − κ_t s_t(θ) in Eq. (1), but Algorithm 1 uses layerwise distributed expected improvement: per-layer surrogates are trained, all other layers are fixed, and layer-local EI is optimized before synchronization. The remark that EI is equivalent to Eq. (1) for κ=1 is asserted without proof and is not generally correct for the quantile/ensemble uncertainty described in §3.1. No argument connects the layerwise distributed EI loop to the full-space UCB analysis. Therefore the proof does not establish convergence of the algorithm whose guarantee Theorem 4.7 claims.
  3. [Assumption 4.3, Lemma B.2, Lemma B.3] The variance-floor assumption effectively assumes the exploration that the proof then derives. Lemma B.2 is essentially a restatement of Assumption 4.3, and its proof contains unsupported steps: s_t^2(θ̃) ≥ ν^2/M_t s_res^2 does not follow from a single empty-leaf tree, and the claim that residuals cannot all be identical is not a consequence of Assumption 4.2 (zero noise and constant f give identical y_i). Lemma B.3 assumes s_{i−1}(θ_{i−1})→0, which is not proved, and invoking a Borel–Cantelli argument for a deterministic query sequence is not meaningful. Since Lemma B.3 is the step that converts the variance floor into query density, the proof assumes much of what it claims to show.
  4. [§6.4, Fig. 5] The baseline comparison is not matched. BQSKit performs approximate general unitary synthesis, whereas CircuitTree optimizes a fixed-depth ansatz against the output distribution of a target state. These are different optimization problems, so comparisons of TVD, gate count, and depth conflate the synthesis objective with the approximation objective. The reported claims — 'up to 59% lower TVD', '61% fewer CX gates', '78% shorter depth' — do not by themselves establish an advantage for approximate state preparation. A matched baseline (e.g., a variational ansatz trained by a standard optimizer, or a synthesis method constrained to the same ansatz) is needed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Algorithm 1, line 10] Line 10 updates D_t with (θ_t, y_t^(ℓ)), but θ_t is not updated after the layer-local optimization on line 8. The notation should make clear that the stored parameter vector is the full vector with the ℓ-th block replaced by θ_t^(ℓ), or the algorithm should define the new full θ_t before evaluation.
  2. [Appendix B, Eq. (1)] Eq. (1) is written as argmin of μ_t − κ_t s_t, which is a lower confidence bound (LCB), not an upper confidence bound (UCB). The text should use consistent terminology.
  3. [§6.1, Fig. 2] The text reports that GP surrogates failed to finish within five days, but no GP curve or runtime comparison appears in the figures. Please provide quantitative support or state the runtime separately.
  4. [§6.2, Fig. 3] The conclusion that 'layerwise optimization achieved a 2.4× reduction in convergence time and 50% lower final TVD' is stated without visible error bars or seed-level statistics in Fig. 3; the reader cannot assess variability from the figure as shown.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Theorem 4.7's proof assumes a previously sampled point already attains f*, making the central convergence argument circular in its key inequality.

specific steps
  1. other [Appendix B.3, Definition B.4 and Equation (3)]
    "Since ρ_{t−1} is the maximum distance to the nearest sampled point, there exists i(t) ≤ t−1 with ‖θ_t − θ_{i(t)}‖ ≤ ρ_{t−1}. Using Lipschitz continuity, f(θ_t) ≤ f(θ_{i(t)}) + Lρ_{t−1} ≤ f* + Lρ_{t−1}. Thus E[r_t] ≤ Lρ_{t−1} + σ."

    The inequality f(θ_{i(t)}) ≤ f* assumes an already-sampled point achieves the global minimum, since f* = inf f implies f(θ) ≥ f* for every θ. The theorem's conclusion is that the algorithm's queried points converge to f*; this proof step inserts that conclusion as an unproved premise at time i(t). Without it, the chain only gives f(θ_t) ≤ f(θ_{i(t)}) + Lρ, and f(θ_{i(t)}) could be far above f*, so the claimed E[r_t] ≤ Lρ + σ does not follow. The regret bound is thus derived by assuming the result it is meant to prove.

full rationale

The empirical core of the paper is not circular: TVD values are measured on simulated and real hardware, and the layerwise optimization scheme is compared directly against baselines. The main circularity is localized to the theoretical proof of Theorem 4.7, where the key inequality assumes a previously sampled point already equals the global optimum. I did not count Assumption 4.3/Lemma 4.5 as circular, because using an explicitly stated assumption in a conditional theorem is normal mathematical practice; the assumption is strong, but it does not definitionally contain the conclusion. Separately, the appendix analyzes the full-space UCB rule of Eq. (1) rather than Algorithm 1's layerwise EI, and the asserted EI/UCB equivalence is not established; these are proof gaps and correctness risks, not definitional circularity. They reinforce that Theorem 4.7 is not proven, but they do not by themselves make the method equivalent to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central theoretical claim rests on assumptions that either are standard (Lipschitz, bounded noise) or are effectively loaded into the conclusion (variance floor at every unqueried point). No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are mostly algorithmic choices not reported with values, plus post hoc selection of ansatz depth and shot budget.

free parameters (3)
  • GBRT hyperparameters (learning rate ν, number of trees M, leaf/quantile settings)
    Chosen by the authors but values are not stated; the convergence proof uses ν and M_max only abstractly, and empirical performance depends on them.
  • Exploration multiplier κ_t = √(2 log t) in proof; κ=1 (EI) empirically
    Chosen to force exploration; the paper asserts EI is equivalent to UCB for κ=1, which is not generally true.
  • Ansatz depth and shot budget = 3–4 layers; 250 shots
    Selected post hoc from Fig. 4 as best-performing; affects all hardware results and the hardware-efficiency claim.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Assumption 4.1: f is L-Lipschitz on Θ
    Used to convert covering radius into regret; conflicts somewhat with the paper's emphasis on non-smoothness, though Lipschitz continuity does not imply differentiability.
  • domain assumption Assumption 4.2: noise is bounded and centered
    Needed for the +σ term in Theorem 4.7; hardware noise is not strictly bounded, as the paper concedes in Remark 4.4.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 4.3: every unqueried point lies in an empty leaf of at least one tree
    This variance-floor assumption is what makes Lemma B.2 and density Lemma B.3 work; it is close to assuming the exploration that the theorem concludes.
  • ad hoc to paper EI and UCB are equivalent for κ=1
    Remark after Eq. 1; Expected Improvement is not the same as Lower Confidence Bound, so the theory is not attached to the implemented acquisition function.
  • standard math Standard sphere-packing/Borel-Cantelli arguments
    Used for covering-radius decay and query density; acceptable as background.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18531 in / 13372 out tokens · 100193 ms · 2026-08-04T13:27:42.520252+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Domain-Aware Probability Sampling for Hybrid Quantum Systems using Bayesian Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VKRBD55U

@misc{pith2026251000145,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Domain-Aware Probability Sampling for Hybrid Quantum Systems using Bayesian Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VKRBD55U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.00145}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We study the problem of probability distribution matching and sampling on near-term quantum computers, aiming to construct parameterized circuits that generate samples from a target distribution while minimizing resource overhead. This task arises naturally in hybrid quantum-classical workflows, where measurement-driven objectives replace full state reconstruction, and is central to applications in generative modeling and variational inference. However, it remains challenging due to hardware noise, limited circuit depth, and a high-dimensional, non-convex parameter space. We propose CircuitTree, a surrogate-guided optimization framework based on Bayesian Optimization with tree-based models for scalable, domain-aware distribution matching. Our approach introduces a structured, layerwise decomposition aligned with the variational circuit architecture, enabling distributed and sample-efficient optimization within hybrid loops with theoretical convergence guarantees. Across representative distribution-matching tasks, CircuitTree achieves up to 2-3 times lower total variation distance while using 40-60% fewer gates than prior approaches. These results demonstrate its effectiveness as a practical building block for end-to-end hybrid quantum sampling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.00145 by Hengrui Luo, Jason Han, Krishna Bhatia, Nicholas S. DiBrita, Tirthak Patel, Younghyun Cho.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: In this work, we use Bayesian Optimization (BO) with tree-based surrogates to update [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: TVD during optimization of 3 different RQCs, using GBRT, QRF, and GBQR. GBRT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: TVD during optimization of 3 different RQCs, using GBRT. Convergence is compared [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Analyzing the impact of (a) the number of ansätze layers and (b) the number of measurement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of CircuitTree and BQSKit on QSP and VQE workloads executed on IBM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distributed subspace splitting: each thread optimizes one layer (blue). Improvements over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Chow, Antonio D

    Gadi Aleksandrowicz, Thomas Alexander, Panagiotis Barkoutsos, Luciano Bello, Yael Ben-Haim, David Bucher, Francisco Jose Cabrera-Hernández, Jorge Carballo-Franquis, Adrian Chen, Chun-Fu Chen, Jerry M. Chow, Antonio D. Córcoles-Gonzales, Abigail J. Cross, Andrew Cross, Juan Cruz-Benito, Chris Culver, Salvador De La Puente González, Enrique De La Torre, Del...

    2019

  2. [2]

    Polynomial-time t-depth optimization of clifford+t circuits via matroid partitioning

    Matthew Amy, Dmitri Maslov, Michele Mosca, and Martin Roetteler. Polynomial-time t-depth optimization of clifford+t circuits via matroid partitioning. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 33 0 (10): 0 1476--1489, 2013 a

    2013

  3. [3]

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

    Matthew Amy, Dmitri Maslov, Michele Mosca, and Martin Roetteler. A meet-in-the-middle algorithm for fast synthesis of depth-optimal quantum circuits. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 32 0 (6): 0 818--830, 2013 b

    2013

  4. [4]

    Bayesian parameterized quantum circuit optimization (bpqco): A task and hardware-dependent approach

    Alexander Ben \' tez-Buenache and Queralt Portell-Montserrat. Bayesian parameterized quantum circuit optimization (bpqco): A task and hardware-dependent approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11253, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Characterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices

    Sergio Boixo, Sergey V Isakov, Vadim N Smelyanskiy, Ryan Babbush, Nan Ding, Zhang Jiang, Michael J Bremner, John M Martinis, and Hartmut Neven. Characterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices. Nature Physics, 14 0 (6): 0 595--600, 2018

    2018

  6. [7]

    A tutorial on bayesian optimization of expensive cost functions, with application to active user modeling and hierarchical reinforcement learning

    Eric Brochu, Vlad M Cora, and Nando De Freitas. A tutorial on bayesian optimization of expensive cost functions, with application to active user modeling and hierarchical reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1012.2599, 2010 b

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  7. [8]

    IBM's Quantum Cloud Computer Goes Commercial

    Davide Castelvecchi. IBM's Quantum Cloud Computer Goes Commercial . Nature News, 543 0 (7644): 0 159, 2017

    2017

  8. [9]

    Variational Quantum Algorithms

    Marco Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Simon C Benjamin, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, Jarrod R McClean, Kosuke Mitarai, Xiao Yuan, Lukasz Cincio, et al. Variational Quantum Algorithms . Nature Reviews Physics, 3 0 (9): 0 625--644, 2021

    2021

  9. [10]

    Quantum wasserstein generative adversarial networks

    Shouvanik Chakrabarti, Huang Yiming, Tongyang Li, Soheil Feizi, and Xiaodi Wu. Quantum wasserstein generative adversarial networks. In H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d Alch\' e -Buc, E. Fox, and R. Garnett (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc., 2019. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/...

    2019

  10. [11]

    Peephole optimization for quantum approximate synthesis

    Joseph Clark and Himanshu Thapliyal. Peephole optimization for quantum approximate synthesis. In 2024 25th International Symposium on Quality Electronic Design (ISQED), pp.\ 1--8. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  11. [12]

    Qubit routing with minimal swap overhead for nisq devices

    Alex Cowtan, Sam Dilkes, Ross Duncan, Axel Krajenbrink, Will Simmons, and Shahnawaz Sivarajah. Qubit routing with minimal swap overhead for nisq devices. Quantum Science and Technology, 5 0 (3): 0 034010, 2020

    2020

  12. [13]

    Error mitigation with clifford quantum-circuit data

    Piotr Czarnik, Andrew Arrasmith, Patrick J Coles, and Lukasz Cincio. Error mitigation with clifford quantum-circuit data. Quantum, 5: 0 592, 2021

    2021

  13. [14]

    A survey of nisq era hybrid quantum-classical machine learning research

    Gennaro De Luca. A survey of nisq era hybrid quantum-classical machine learning research. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Technology, 2 0 (1): 0 9--15, 2022

    2022

  14. [15]

    Quantum theory of the nonlinear hall effect

    ZZ Du, CM Wang, Hai-Peng Sun, Hai-Zhou Lu, and XC Xie. Quantum theory of the nonlinear hall effect. Nature communications, 12 0 (1): 0 5038, 2021

    2021

  15. [16]

    Benchmarking Noise Extrapolation with OpenPulse

    Eugen Dumitrescu, Raphael Pooser, and John Garmon. Benchmarking Noise Extrapolation with OpenPulse . Bulletin of the American Physical Society, 2020

    2020

  16. [17]

    Quantum neural architecture search with quantum circuits metric and bayesian optimization

    Trong Duong, Sang T Truong, Minh Pham, Bao Bach, and June-Koo Rhee. Quantum neural architecture search with quantum circuits metric and bayesian optimization. In ICML 2022 2nd AI for Science Workshop, 2022

    2022

  17. [18]

    A tutorial on bayesian optimization

    Peter I Frazier. A tutorial on bayesian optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.02811, 2018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  18. [19]

    Efficient quantum circuit synthesis for multi-qubit gates

    Craig Gidney et al. Efficient quantum circuit synthesis for multi-qubit gates. Quantum, 5: 0 1--14, 2021

    2021

  19. [20]

    Bqskit: The berkeley quantum synthesis toolkit

    Berkeley Quantum Synthesis Group. Bqskit: The berkeley quantum synthesis toolkit. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.01540, 2021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [21]

    Creating superpositions that correspond to efficiently integrable probability distributions

    Lov K Grover and Terry Rudolph. Creating superpositions that correspond to efficiently integrable probability distributions. arXiv preprint quant-ph/0208112, 2002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  21. [22]

    High-dimensional bayesian optimization via tree-structured additive models

    Eric Han, Ishank Arora, and Jonathan Scarlett. High-dimensional bayesian optimization via tree-structured additive models. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pp.\ 7630--7638, 2021

    2021

  22. [23]

    EnQode: Fast Amplitude Embedding for Quantum Machine Learning Using Classical Data

    Jason Han, Nicholas S DiBrita, Younghyun Cho, Hengrui Luo, and Tirthak Patel. EnQode: Fast Amplitude Embedding for Quantum Machine Learning Using Classical Data . ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2025

    2025

  23. [24]

    Scikit-optimize/scikit-optimize

    Tim Head, Manoj Kumar, Holger Nahrstaedt, Gilles Louppe, and Iaroslav Shcherbatyi. Scikit-optimize/scikit-optimize. 2021. Available at: https://scikit-learn.org/

    2021

  24. [25]

    Cerezo, and Patrick J

    Zoë Holmes, Kunal Sharma, M. Cerezo, and Patrick J. Coles. Connecting Ansatz Expressibility to Gradient Magnitudes and Barren Plateaus . PRX Quantum, 3 0 (1): 0 010313, January 2022. ISSN 2691-3399. doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.010313. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.010313

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.3.010313 2022

  25. [26]

    Sequential model-based optimization for general algorithm configuration

    Frank Hutter, Holger H Hoos, and Kevin Leyton-Brown. Sequential model-based optimization for general algorithm configuration. In Learning and intelligent optimization: 5th international conference, LION 5, rome, Italy, January 17-21, 2011. selected papers 5, pp.\ 507--523. Springer, 2011

    2011

  26. [27]

    Wood, Jake Lishman, Julien Gacon, Simon Martiel, Paul D

    Ali Javadi-Abhari, Matthew Treinish, Kevin Krsulich, Christopher J. Wood, Jake Lishman, Julien Gacon, Simon Martiel, Paul D. Nation, Lev S. Bishop, Andrew W. Cross, Blake R. Johnson, and Jay M. Gambetta. Quantum computing with Q iskit, 2024

    2024

  27. [28]

    High dimensional bayesian optimisation and bandits via additive models

    Kirthevasan Kandasamy, Jeff Schneider, and Barnab \'a s P \'o czos. High dimensional bayesian optimisation and bandits via additive models. In International conference on machine learning, pp.\ 295--304. PMLR, 2015

    2015

  28. [29]

    Quantum-assisted quantum compiling

    Sumeet Khatri, Ryan LaRose, Alexander Poremba, Lukasz Cincio, Andrew T Sornborger, and Patrick J Coles. Quantum-assisted quantum compiling. Quantum, 3: 0 140, 2019

    2019

  29. [30]

    Zx-calculus-based synthesis of quantum circuits

    Alexander Kissinger et al. Zx-calculus-based synthesis of quantum circuits. Quantum, 5: 0 1--14, 2021

    2021

  30. [31]

    QASMBench: A Low-Level Quantum Benchmark Suite for NISQ Evaluation and Simulation

    Ang Li, Samuel Stein, Sriram Krishnamoorthy, and James Ang. QASMBench: A Low-Level Quantum Benchmark Suite for NISQ Evaluation and Simulation . ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 4 0 (2): 0 1--26, 2023

    2023

  31. [32]

    Quantum Circuits for Dynamic Runtime Assertions in Quantum Computation

    Ji Liu, Gregory T Byrd, and Huiyang Zhou. Quantum Circuits for Dynamic Runtime Assertions in Quantum Computation . In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, pp.\ 1017--1030, 2020

    2020

  32. [33]

    Hengrui Luo, Giovanni Nattino, and Matthew T. Pratola. Sparse Additive Gaussian Process Regression . Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23 0 (61): 0 1--34, 2022

    2022

  33. [34]

    Non-smooth bayesian optimization in tuning scientific applications

    Hengrui Luo, Younghyun Cho, James W Demmel, Igor Kozachenko, Xiaoye S Li, and Yang Liu. Non-smooth bayesian optimization in tuning scientific applications. The International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications, 38 0 (6): 0 633--657, 2024 a

    2024

  34. [35]

    Demmel, Xiaoye S

    Hengrui Luo, Younghyun Cho, James W. Demmel, Xiaoye S. Li, and Yang Liu. Hybrid parameter search and dynamic model selection for mixed-variable bayesian optimization. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 33 0 (3): 0 855--868, 2024 b . doi:10.1080/10618600.2024.2308216. URL https://doi.org/10.1080/10618600.2024.2308216

    arXiv 2024

  35. [36]

    Quantile regression forests

    Nicolai Meinshausen and Greg Ridgeway. Quantile regression forests. Journal of machine learning research, 7 0 (6), 2006

    2006

  36. [37]

    Variational synthesis methods for quantum circuits

    John Miller et al. Variational synthesis methods for quantum circuits. Quantum, 6: 0 1--14, 2022

    2022

  37. [38]

    Quantum circuit learning

    Kosuke Mitarai, Makoto Negoro, Masahiro Kitagawa, and Keisuke Fujii. Quantum circuit learning. Physical Review A, 98 0 (3): 0 032309, 2018

    2018

  38. [39]

    Software Mitigation of Crosstalk on Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum Computers

    Prakash Murali, David C McKay, Margaret Martonosi, and Ali Javadi-Abhari. Software Mitigation of Crosstalk on Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum Computers . In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, pp.\ 1001--1016, 2020

    2020

  39. [40]

    Automated optimization of large quantum circuits with continuous parameters

    Yunseong Nam, Neil J Ross, Yuan Su, Andrew M Childs, and Dmitri Maslov. Automated optimization of large quantum circuits with continuous parameters. npj Quantum Information, 4 0 (1): 0 23, 2018

    2018

  40. [41]

    Ross, Ying Su, Dmitri Maslov, and Frederic T

    Yunseong Nam, Neil J. Ross, Ying Su, Dmitri Maslov, and Frederic T. Chong. A scalable synthesis method for quantum circuits using decision diagrams. Quantum Science and Technology, 5 0 (2): 0 025010, 2020

    2020

  41. [42]

    Efficiency of coordinate descent methods on huge-scale optimization problems

    Yu Nesterov. Efficiency of coordinate descent methods on huge-scale optimization problems. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 22 0 (2): 0 341--362, 2012

    2012

  42. [43]

    u hn, Klaus-Robert M \

    Kim Nicoli, Christopher J Anders, Lena Funcke, Tobias Hartung, Karl Jansen, Stefan K \"u hn, Klaus-Robert M \"u ller, Paolo Stornati, Pan Kessel, and Shinichi Nakajima. Physics-informed bayesian optimization of variational quantum circuits. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  43. [44]

    Quantum computation and quantum information

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

    2010

  44. [45]

    Classical algorithm for simulating experimental gaussian boson sampling

    Changhun Oh, Minzhao Liu, Yuri Alexeev, Bill Fefferman, and Liang Jiang. Classical algorithm for simulating experimental gaussian boson sampling. Nature Physics, pp.\ 1--8, 2024

    2024

  45. [46]

    Synthetiq: Fast and versatile quantum circuit synthesis

    Anouk Paradis, Jasper Dekoninck, Benjamin Bichsel, and Martin Vechev. Synthetiq: Fast and versatile quantum circuit synthesis. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages, 8 0 (OOPSLA1): 0 55--82, 2024

    2024

  46. [47]

    QRAFT: Reverse your Quantum Circuit and Know the Correct Program Output

    Tirthak Patel and Devesh Tiwari. QRAFT: Reverse your Quantum Circuit and Know the Correct Program Output . In Proceedings of the 26th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, pp.\ 443--455, 2021

    2021

  47. [48]

    Ureqa: Leveraging operation-aware error rates for effective quantum circuit mapping on nisq-era quantum computers

    Tirthak Patel, Baolin Li, Rohan Basu Roy, and Devesh Tiwari. Ureqa: Leveraging operation-aware error rates for effective quantum circuit mapping on nisq-era quantum computers. In 2020 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 20), pp.\ 705--711, 2020 a

    2020

  48. [49]

    Experimental Evaluation of NISQ Quantum Computers: Error Measurement, Characterization, and Implications

    Tirthak Patel, Abhay Potharaju, Baolin Li, Rohan Roy, and Devesh Tiwari. Experimental Evaluation of NISQ Quantum Computers: Error Measurement, Characterization, and Implications . In 2020 SC20: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (SC), pp.\ 636--650. IEEE Computer Society, 2020 b

    2020

  49. [50]

    QUEST: Systematically Approximating Quantum Circuits for Higher Output Fidelity

    Tirthak Patel, Ed Younis, Costin Iancu, Wibe de Jong, and Devesh Tiwari. QUEST: Systematically Approximating Quantum Circuits for Higher Output Fidelity . In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, pp.\ 514--528, 2022

    2022

  50. [51]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in P ython. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12: 0 2825--2830, 2011

    2011

  51. [52]

    A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor

    Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod McClean, Peter Shadbolt, Man-Hong Yung, Xiao-Qi Zhou, Peter J Love, Al \'a n Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L O’brien. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nature communications, 5 0 (1): 0 4213, 2014

    2014

  52. [53]

    Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond

    John Preskill. Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond. Quantum, 2: 0 79, 2018

    2018

  53. [54]

    Quantum Computing 40 Years Later

    John Preskill. Quantum Computing 40 Years Later . arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.10522, 2021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [55]

    Quantum computing in the cloud: Analyzing job and machine characteristics

    Gokul Subramanian Ravi, Kaitlin N Smith, Pranav Gokhale, and Frederic T Chong. Quantum computing in the cloud: Analyzing job and machine characteristics. In 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Workload Characterization (IISWC), pp.\ 39--50. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  55. [56]

    High-dimensional bayesian optimization via additive models with overlapping groups

    Paul Rolland, Jonathan Scarlett, Ilija Bogunovic, and Volkan Cevher. High-dimensional bayesian optimization via additive models with overlapping groups. In International conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, pp.\ 298--307. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  56. [57]

    Quantum machine learning in feature hilbert spaces

    Maria Schuld, Francesco Petruccione, David Diepold, and Christian Gogolin. Quantum machine learning in feature hilbert spaces. Physical Review A, 99 0 (3): 0 032331, 2019

    2019

  57. [58]

    Scikit-Optimize

    Scikit-Optimize. Scikit-Optimize . https://github.com/scikit-optimize/scikit-optimize, 2024. Accessed: 2024-05-01

    2024

  58. [59]

    Taking the human out of the loop: A review of bayesian optimization

    Bobak Shahriari, Kevin Swersky, Ziyu Wang, Ryan P Adams, and Nando De Freitas. Taking the human out of the loop: A review of bayesian optimization. Proceedings of the IEEE, 104 0 (1): 0 148--175, 2015

    2015

  59. [60]

    Synthesis of quantum logic circuits

    Vivek V Shende, Stephen S Bullock, and Igor L Markov. Synthesis of quantum logic circuits. In Proceedings of the 2005 Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference, pp.\ 272--275, 2005

    2005

  60. [61]

    Quilt: Effective Multi-class Classification on Quantum Computers using an Ensemble of Diverse Quantum Classifiers

    Daniel Silver, Tirthak Patel, and Devesh Tiwari. Quilt: Effective Multi-class Classification on Quantum Computers using an Ensemble of Diverse Quantum Classifiers . In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pp.\ 8324--8332, 2022

    2022

  61. [62]

    MosaiQ: Quantum Generative Adversarial Networks for Image Generation on NISQ Computers

    Daniel Silver, Tirthak Patel, William Cutler, Aditya Ranjan, Harshitta Gandhi, and Devesh Tiwari. MosaiQ: Quantum Generative Adversarial Networks for Image Generation on NISQ Computers . In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp.\ 7030--7039, 2023

    2023

  62. [63]

    LEAP: Scaling Numerical Optimization Based Synthesis Using an Incremental Approach

    Ethan Smith, Marc G Davis, Jeffrey M Larson, Ed Younis, Costin Iancu, and Wim Lavrijsen. LEAP: Scaling Numerical Optimization Based Synthesis Using an Incremental Approach . arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.11246, 2021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  63. [64]

    Leap: Scaling numerical optimization based synthesis using an incremental approach

    Ethan Smith, Marc Grau Davis, Jeffrey Larson, Ed Younis, Lindsay Bassman Oftelie, Wim Lavrijsen, and Costin Iancu. Leap: Scaling numerical optimization based synthesis using an incremental approach. ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 4 0 (1): 0 1--23, 2023

    2023

  64. [65]

    Practical bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithms

    Jasper Snoek, Hugo Larochelle, and Ryan P Adams. Practical bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithms. Advances in neural information processing systems, 25, 2012

    2012

  65. [66]

    Multi-task bayesian optimization

    Kevin Swersky, Jasper Snoek, and Ryan P Adams. Multi-task bayesian optimization. Advances in neural information processing systems, 26, 2013

    2013

  66. [67]

    Forecasting uncertainty in electricity smart meter data by boosting additive quantile regression

    Souhaib Ben Taieb, Rapha \"e l Huser, Rob J Hyndman, and Marc G Genton. Forecasting uncertainty in electricity smart meter data by boosting additive quantile regression. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 7 0 (5): 0 2448--2455, 2016

    2016

  67. [68]

    Stochastic gradient line bayesian optimization for efficient noise-robust optimization of parameterized quantum circuits

    Shiro Tamiya and Hayata Yamasaki. Stochastic gradient line bayesian optimization for efficient noise-robust optimization of parameterized quantum circuits. npj Quantum Information, 8 0 (1): 0 90, 2022

    2022

  68. [69]

    Not All Aubits are Created Equal: A Case for Variability-Aware Policies for NISQ-Era Quantum Computers

    Swamit S Tannu and Moinuddin K Qureshi. Not All Aubits are Created Equal: A Case for Variability-Aware Policies for NISQ-Era Quantum Computers . In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, pp.\ 987--999. ACM, 2019

    2019

  69. [70]

    QuantumNAS: Noise-Adaptive Search for Robust Quantum Circuits

    Hanrui Wang, Yongshan Ding, Jiaqi Gu, Yujun Lin, David Z Pan, Frederic T Chong, and Song Han. QuantumNAS: Noise-Adaptive Search for Robust Quantum Circuits . In 2022 IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA), pp.\ 692--708. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  70. [71]

    Bayesian optimization in a billion dimensions via random embeddings

    Ziyu Wang, Frank Hutter, Masrour Zoghi, David Matheson, and Nando De Feitas. Bayesian optimization in a billion dimensions via random embeddings. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 55: 0 361--387, 2016

    2016

  71. [72]

    Mapping Quantum Circuits to IBM QX Architectures Using the Minimal Number of SWAP and H Operations

    Robert Wille, Lukas Burgholzer, and Alwin Zulehner. Mapping Quantum Circuits to IBM QX Architectures Using the Minimal Number of SWAP and H Operations . In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Design Automation Conference 2019, pp.\ 142. ACM, 2019

    2019

  72. [73]

    Gaussian processes for machine learning, volume 2

    Christopher KI Williams and Carl Edward Rasmussen. Gaussian processes for machine learning, volume 2. MIT press Cambridge, MA, 2006

    2006

  73. [74]

    Benchmarking an 11-Qubit Quantum Computer

    K Wright, KM Beck, S Debnath, JM Amini, Y Nam, N Grzesiak, J-S Chen, NC Pisenti, M Chmielewski, C Collins, et al. Benchmarking an 11-Qubit Quantum Computer . Nature communications, 10 0 (1): 0 1--6, 2019

    2019

  74. [75]

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

    Ed Younis, Koushik Sen, Katherine Yelick, and Costin Iancu. Qfast: Conflating search and numerical optimization for scalable quantum circuit synthesis. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), pp.\ 232--243. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  75. [76]

    Synthesis techniques for fault-tolerant quantum circuits

    Wei Yu et al. Synthesis techniques for fault-tolerant quantum circuits. Quantum, 7: 0 1--14, 2023

    2023

  76. [77]

    Deep learning for quantum compilation

    Alex Zlokapa, Zoe Holmes, et al. Deep learning for quantum compilation. Nature Machine Intelligence, 5: 0 449--456, 2023

    2023

  77. [78]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION format.date year duplicate empty "emp...

  78. [79]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifxundefined[1] #1\@undefined \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifnum[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifx[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo [2] @ #1 \@temptokena #2 #1 @ \@temptokena \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later remove the command n...

  79. [80]

    \@lbibitem[] @bibitem@first@sw\@secondoftwo \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 @tmp #1 NAT@b@open@#2 NAT@b@shut@#2 \@ifnum @merge>\@ne @bibitem@first@sw \@firstoftwo \@ifundefined NAT@b*@#2 \@firstoftwo @num @NAT@ctr \@secondoft...

  80. [81]

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifxundefined @sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifxundefined @heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel @NAT@ctr \@bibsetup #1 @NAT@ctr @ @openbib .11em \@plus.33em \@minus.07em 4000 4000 `\.\@m @bibit...

    arXiv