pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.16202 · v1 · pith:HB4UYBEMnew · submitted 2026-05-15 · 🪐 quant-ph · cs.ET

Performance Gains in Quantum SAT Solvers Using ESOP Encoding

Majd Assaad , Abhoy Kole , Rolf Drechsler This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 17:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cs.ET
keywords quantum SATGrover oracleESOP encodinge-CNFquantum resourcesClifford+T gatesreversible circuitsSAT benchmarks
0
0 comments X

The pith

ESOP-derived e-CNF encodings reduce qubit count, T-gate count, and depth in Grover SAT oracles relative to standard CNF.

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

The paper establishes that converting Boolean SAT formulas into an exclusive-sum-of-products-based conjunctive normal form produces oracle circuits for Grover search that require fewer qubits and fewer non-Clifford gates than the conventional CNF route. A scalable mapping from arbitrary formulas to this e-CNF form is given, together with a direct translation of the resulting clauses into reversible quantum gates. Benchmarks confirm consistent savings in total qubits, T gates, and overall circuit depth. If the reductions hold across broader instance classes, Grover-based quantum SAT solvers become viable on hardware with tighter resource limits.

Core claim

Replacing standard CNF with an e-CNF representation derived from ESOP yields tighter analytic upper bounds on the number of qubits and on the number of Clifford+T gates needed to implement the SAT oracle; the same representation also admits a systematic construction of the corresponding reversible circuit, and experiments on representative SAT benchmarks exhibit substantial measured reductions in qubit usage, T-gate count, and circuit depth compared with CNF-based oracles.

What carries the argument

The e-CNF encoding, obtained by transforming a Boolean formula into a conjunctive normal form whose product terms are exclusive sums, together with the reversible-circuit interpretation that directly maps each e-CNF clause to a controlled-phase or Toffoli structure inside the Grover oracle.

If this is right

  • Grover SAT solvers can be applied to larger problem sizes on a fixed number of physical qubits.
  • The lower T-gate count reduces the overhead required for fault-tolerant error correction.
  • Shorter circuit depth improves the chance that the algorithm finishes before decoherence dominates.
  • The same encoding strategy can be reused for any search problem whose acceptance condition is a Boolean formula.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The resource savings may compound when e-CNF is paired with existing qubit-reuse or gate-cancellation passes.
  • Similar exclusive-sum representations could be tested on other NP-complete problems encoded for quantum search.
  • If the upper bounds remain tight, they supply a concrete metric for comparing future quantum-aware SAT encodings.

Load-bearing premise

The transformation from any Boolean formula to e-CNF always produces an oracle circuit whose resource bounds remain strictly better than those of the corresponding CNF circuit for the practical instances that matter.

What would settle it

Running the same Grover oracle construction on a large, diverse set of SAT benchmarks and finding that the e-CNF version uses more qubits, more T gates, or greater depth than the CNF version on a majority of instances would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.16202 by Abhoy Kole, Majd Assaad, Rolf Drechsler.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic overview of Grover’s algorithm for SAT, showing a single Grover [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Realization of (a) a CNF clause x1 ∨ x2 ∨ · · · ∨ xk using input negation and a negative-k-controlled Toffoli gate, and (b) an ESOP product term implementing y ⊕ (x1 ∧ x2 ∧ · · · ∧ xk) using a positive-k-controlled Toffoli gate. where CostF = |UF | denotes the gate complexity of the oracle circuit UF , measured as the number of Clifford+T gates required to evaluate the Boolean formula F and apply the assoc… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) A three-qubit Toffoli (CCX) gate and (b) its decomposition into Clif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Quantum circuit representation of proposition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Quantum circuit representations of proposition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Quantum oracle circuits synthesized using Algorithm 1: (a) oracle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) problem is a canonical NP-complete problem and a natural candidate for quantum acceleration via search-based algorithms. In Grover-based quantum SAT solvers, the dominant computational cost stems from the construction of a reversible oracle that evaluates the Boolean formula, rendering the choice of SAT encoding crucial for overall quantum resource efficiency. Although SAT instances are conventionally expressed in Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF), such encodings typically translate into quantum circuits with significant qubit overhead and high non-Clifford gate complexity. In this work, we investigate an Exclusive-Sum-of-Products (ESOP)-based CNF (e-CNF) representation tailored for quantum SAT solving and analyze its impact on oracle construction. We derive tighter upper bounds on qubit requirements and Clifford+$T$ gate counts for Grover-based SAT solvers when e-CNF encodings are employed in place of standard CNF. In addition, we propose a scalable transformation from Boolean formulas to e-CNF and present a systematic procedure for interpreting e-CNF representations as reversible quantum circuits suitable for oracle implementation. Experimental evaluation on representative SAT benchmarks demonstrates that the proposed e-CNF-based approach yields substantial and consistent reductions in quantum resources, including qubit count, T-gate complexity, and circuit depth, when compared to CNF-based oracle constructions. These results establish e-CNF as an effective quantum-aware SAT encoding that significantly improves the practicality of oracle-based quantum SAT solving.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an ESOP-based CNF (e-CNF) encoding for SAT instances in Grover-based quantum solvers. It derives tighter upper bounds on qubit count and Clifford+T gate complexity for the resulting oracle circuits, introduces a scalable transformation from arbitrary Boolean formulas to e-CNF, describes a systematic mapping of e-CNF to reversible quantum circuits, and reports experimental reductions in qubit count, T-gate count, and circuit depth relative to standard CNF oracles on representative SAT benchmarks.

Significance. If the bounds hold and the reductions generalize, the work would improve the resource efficiency of oracle-based quantum SAT solvers, addressing a key practical bottleneck. The emphasis on quantum-aware encodings and the explicit reversible-circuit construction procedure constitute concrete strengths that could aid reproducibility and further optimization.

major comments (3)
  1. [Transformation procedure (following abstract)] The section describing the scalable transformation from arbitrary Boolean formulas to e-CNF asserts compactness and efficiency but provides no explicit worst-case term-count bounds or analysis of blowup for high XOR-density or structured instances; this directly affects whether the claimed tighter resource upper bounds remain valid beyond the tested cases.
  2. [Bounds derivation] The derivation of tighter upper bounds on qubit requirements and Clifford+T gate counts (stated in the abstract and bounds section) lacks the explicit steps, comparison formulas to standard CNF, or assumptions in the e-CNF-to-circuit mapping needed to confirm they are independent of the experimental data and genuinely tighter.
  3. [Experimental evaluation] Table or figure reporting experimental results: reductions in qubit count, T-gate complexity, and depth are presented without error bars, benchmark selection criteria, or statistical tests; this leaves open the possibility of post-hoc choice or unstated assumptions in the transformation affecting the consistency claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Circuit interpretation procedure] Clarify the precise definition of e-CNF and the reversible oracle construction steps with a small worked example to improve readability for readers unfamiliar with ESOP forms.
  2. [Introduction] Add a brief discussion of related prior work on ESOP minimization and quantum oracle constructions for SAT to better situate the contribution.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review of our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below and indicate the revisions we will incorporate to strengthen the presentation and rigor of the work.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The section describing the scalable transformation from arbitrary Boolean formulas to e-CNF asserts compactness and efficiency but provides no explicit worst-case term-count bounds or analysis of blowup for high XOR-density or structured instances; this directly affects whether the claimed tighter resource upper bounds remain valid beyond the tested cases.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would be strengthened by an explicit worst-case analysis of term-count blowup in the transformation to e-CNF. The procedure builds on established ESOP synthesis algorithms that exhibit good practical scaling, but to rigorously support the resource bounds beyond the evaluated instances, we will add a dedicated subsection deriving theoretical upper bounds on term count, including for high XOR-density and structured formulas. This addition will clarify the conditions under which the tighter bounds hold. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The derivation of tighter upper bounds on qubit requirements and Clifford+T gate counts (stated in the abstract and bounds section) lacks the explicit steps, comparison formulas to standard CNF, or assumptions in the e-CNF-to-circuit mapping needed to confirm they are independent of the experimental data and genuinely tighter.

    Authors: The tighter bounds follow from the exclusive-sum structure of e-CNF, which enables a reversible-circuit mapping with reduced ancillary qubits and lower T-gate counts relative to CNF. We acknowledge that the current text does not present the derivation steps and comparisons with sufficient detail. We will expand the bounds section to include the full step-by-step derivation, the explicit assumptions of the e-CNF-to-circuit mapping, and direct analytical comparisons to standard CNF, establishing that the bounds are theoretical and independent of the experimental results. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Table or figure reporting experimental results: reductions in qubit count, T-gate complexity, and depth are presented without error bars, benchmark selection criteria, or statistical tests; this leaves open the possibility of post-hoc choice or unstated assumptions in the transformation affecting the consistency claim.

    Authors: The benchmarks were drawn from standard SAT competition and library instances chosen to represent varied structures and sizes. To improve transparency and address the concern about consistency, we will revise the experimental section to state the selection criteria explicitly, report error bars on averaged metrics where applicable, and include statistical tests supporting the observed reductions. These changes will strengthen the evidence for the reported performance gains. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: resource bounds and experimental gains derived independently of inputs

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain consists of deriving tighter upper bounds on qubits and Clifford+T counts from e-CNF properties, proposing a scalable Boolean-to-e-CNF transformation, and then running direct experimental comparisons on SAT benchmarks. None of these steps reduce by construction to fitted parameters, self-definitions, or load-bearing self-citations; the reported reductions in qubit count, T-gate complexity, and depth are measured outcomes rather than renamed inputs. The abstract and skeptic summary contain no equations or claims that equate a prediction to its own fitting procedure or prior author result. This is a standard non-circular experimental paper whose central claims remain falsifiable against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; full derivation and experimental details unavailable. No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the visible text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5780 in / 1070 out tokens · 81855 ms · 2026-05-20T17:40:55.904732+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Stephen A. Cook. The complexity of theorem-proving procedures. InPro- ceedings of the Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’71, page 151–158, New York, NY, USA, 1971. Association for Computing Machinery

    work page 1971

  2. [2]

    Marques-Silva and K.A

    J.P. Marques-Silva and K.A. Sakallah. GRASP: a search algorithm for propo- sitional satisfiability.IEEE Transactions on Computers, 48(5):506–521, 1999

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    Sym- bolic model checking without bdds

    Armin Biere, Alessandro Cimatti, Edmund Clarke, and Yunshan Zhu. Sym- bolic model checking without bdds. In W. Rance Cleaveland, editor,Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, pages 193–207, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1999. Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    work page 1999

  4. [4]

    Gomes, Henry Kautz, Ashish Sabharwal, and Bart Selman

    Carla P. Gomes, Henry Kautz, Ashish Sabharwal, and Bart Selman. Satisfia- bility solvers. In Frank van Harmelen, Vladimir Lifschitz, and Bruce Porter, Performance Gains in Quantum SAT Solvers 17 editors,Handbook of Knowledge Representation, volume 3 ofFoundations of Ar- tificial Intelligence, pages 89–134. Elsevier, 2008

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Moskewicz, Conor F

    Matthew W. Moskewicz, Conor F. Madigan, Ying Zhao, Lintao Zhang, and Sharad Malik. Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver. InProceedings of the 38th Annual Design Automation Conference, DAC ’01, page 530–535, New York, NY, USA, 2001. Association for Computing Machinery

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    Preprocessing in sat solv- ing

    Armin Biere, Matti J¨ arvisalo, and Benjamin Kiesl. Preprocessing in sat solv- ing. InHandbook of Satisfiability, pages 391–435. IOS press, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    SAT solving using xor-or-and normal forms.Mathematics in Computer Science, 18(4):20, Oct 2024

    Bernhard Andraschko, Julian Danner, and Martin Kreuzer. SAT solving using xor-or-and normal forms.Mathematics in Computer Science, 18(4):20, Oct 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Decomposable negation normal form.J

    Adnan Darwiche. Decomposable negation normal form.J. ACM, 48(4):608–647, July 2001

    work page 2001

  9. [9]

    Plaisted and Steven Greenbaum

    David A. Plaisted and Steven Greenbaum. A structure-preserving clause form translation.Journal of Symbolic Computation, 2(3):293–304, 1986

    work page 1986

  10. [10]

    Tseitin or not tseitin? the impact of CNF transformations on feature-model analyses

    Elias Kuiter, Sebastian Krieter, Chico Sundermann, Thomas Th¨ um, and Gunter Saake. Tseitin or not tseitin? the impact of CNF transformations on feature-model analyses. InProceedings of the 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE ’22, New York, NY, USA,

    work page

  11. [11]

    Association for Computing Machinery

    work page

  12. [12]

    Jiang, and Alan Mishchenko

    He-Teng Zhang, Jie-Hong R. Jiang, and Alan Mishchenko. A circuit-based SAT solver for logic synthesis. In2021 IEEE/ACM International Conference On Computer Aided Design (ICCAD), pages 1–6, 2021

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation.IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-35(8):677–691, 1986

    Bryant. Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation.IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-35(8):677–691, 1986

    work page 1986

  14. [14]

    DAG-aware AIG rewriting a fresh look at combinational logic synthesis

    Alan Mishchenko, Satrajit Chatterjee, and Robert Brayton. DAG-aware AIG rewriting a fresh look at combinational logic synthesis. InProceedings of the 43rd Annual Design Automation Conference, DAC ’06, page 532–535, New York, NY, USA, 2006. Association for Computing Machinery

    work page 2006

  15. [15]

    Local two-level and-inverter graph min- imization without blowup.Proc

    Robert Brummayer and Armin Biere. Local two-level and-inverter graph min- imization without blowup.Proc. MEMICS, 6:32–38, 2006

    work page 2006

  16. [16]

    A machine program for theorem-proving.Commun

    Martin Davis, George Logemann, and Donald Loveland. A machine program for theorem-proving.Commun. ACM, 5(7):394–397, July 1962

    work page 1962

  17. [17]

    Pushing the envelope: Planning, propositional logic, and stochastic search

    Henry Kautz and Bart Selman. Pushing the envelope: Planning, propositional logic, and stochastic search. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1194–1201, 1996

    work page 1996

  18. [18]

    Z3: An efficient smt solver

    Leonardo de Moura and Nikolaj Bjørner. Z3: An efficient smt solver. In C. R. Ramakrishnan and Jakob Rehof, editors,Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, pages 337–340, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008. Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    work page 2008

  19. [19]

    Proof complexity and SAT solving

    Sam Buss and Jakob Nordstr¨ om. Proof complexity and SAT solving. In Handbook of Satisfiability, pages 233–350. IOS Press, 2021

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    On quantum versions of record-breaking algorithms for sat.SIGACT News, 36(4):103–108, December 2005

    Evgeny Dantsin, Vladik Kreinovich, and Alexander Wolpert. On quantum versions of record-breaking algorithms for sat.SIGACT News, 36(4):103–108, December 2005

    work page 2005

  21. [21]

    Lov K. Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. InProceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Com- puting, STOC ’96, page 212–219, New York, NY, USA, 1996. Association for Computing Machinery. 18 Majd Assaad et al

    work page 1996

  22. [22]

    Solving sat and maxsat with a quantum annealer: Foundations and a preliminary report

    Zhengbing Bian, Fabian Chudak, William Macready, Aidan Roy, et al. Solving sat and maxsat with a quantum annealer: Foundations and a preliminary report. InFrontiers of Combining Systems, pages 153–171, Cham, 2017. Springer International Publishing

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    A tutorial on formulating and using qubo models

    Fred Glover, Gary Kochenberger, and Yu Du. A tutorial on formulating and using qubo models.arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.11538 [cs.DS], 2018

    work page arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    Amplitude amplification-inspired qaoa: improving the success probability for solving 3sat.Quantum Science and Technology, 9(1):015028, jan 2024

    Alexander Mandl, Johanna Barzen, Marvin Bechtold, Frank Leymann, and Karoline Wild. Amplitude amplification-inspired qaoa: improving the success probability for solving 3sat.Quantum Science and Technology, 9(1):015028, jan 2024

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Andrew Lanham and Brian R

    S. Andrew Lanham and Brian R. La Cour. A quantum-inspired classical solver for boolean k-satisfiability problems. In2021 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), pages 148–154, 2021

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Djeridane, Lennart Weingarten, Kamalika Datta, and Rolf Drechsler

    Abhoy Kole, Mohammed E. Djeridane, Lennart Weingarten, Kamalika Datta, and Rolf Drechsler. qSAT: Design of an efficient quantum satisfiability solver for hardware equivalence checking.J. Emerg. Technol. Comput. Syst., April 2025

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    G. S. Tseitin. On the complexity of derivation in propositional calculus. In J¨ org H. Siekmann and Graham Wrightson, editors,Automation of Reasoning: 2: Classical Papers on Computational Logic 1967–1970, pages 466–483. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1983

    work page 1967

  28. [28]

    T. Sasao. Exmin: a simplification algorithm for exclusive-or-sum-of-products expressions for multiple-valued input two-valued output functions. InProceed- ings of the Twentieth International Symposium on Multiple-Valued Logic, pages 128–135, 1990

    work page 1990

  29. [29]

    Schmitt, and Giovanni De Micheli

    Heinz Riener, R¨ udiger Ehlers, Bruno de O. Schmitt, and Giovanni De Micheli. Exact Synthesis of ESOP Forms, pages 177–194. Springer International Pub- lishing, Cham, 2020

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    Fazel, M

    K. Fazel, M. A. Thornton, and J. E. Rice. ESOP-based toffoli gate cascade generation. InIEEE Pacific Rim Conference on Communications, Computers and Signal Processing, pages 206–209, 2007

    work page 2007

  31. [31]

    Improving ESOP- based synthesis of reversible logic using evolutionary algorithms

    Rolf Drechsler, Alexander Finder, and Robert Wille. Improving ESOP- based synthesis of reversible logic using evolutionary algorithms. In Cecilia Di Chio, Anthony Brabazon, Gianni A. Di Caro, Rolf Drechsler, Muddassar Farooq, J¨ orn Grahl, Gary Greenfield, Christian Prins, Juan Romero, Giovanni Squillero, Ernesto Tarantino, Andrea G. B. Tettamanzi, Neil U...

    work page 2011

  32. [32]

    Advantages of using relative-phase toffoli gates with an appli- cation to multiple control toffoli optimization.Phys

    Dmitri Maslov. Advantages of using relative-phase toffoli gates with an appli- cation to multiple control toffoli optimization.Phys. Rev. A, 93:022311, Feb 2016

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    da Silva and Daniel K

    Adenilton J. da Silva and Daniel K. Park. Linear-depth quantum circuits for multiqubit controlled gates.Phys. Rev. A, 106:042602, Oct 2022

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    Open Quantum Assembly Language

    Andrew W Cross, Lev S Bishop, John A Smolin, and Jay M Gambetta. Open quantum assembly language.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.03429, 2017

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017