Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 42 references

A Quantum Roadmap for Softmax Attention: Exact Born-Rule Analogs for Softmax Attention on the Probability Simplex

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Softmax attention on probability data can be reproduced exactly by a quantum circuit whose every learned parameter is a rotation angle.

desk verdict A careful, mostly correct quantum dictionary for a Hellinger-flavored attention layer whose abstract overstates the match to textbook softmax attention. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11173 v1 pith:AEKXKHGS submitted 2026-08-11 quant-ph cs.LG

Eric A. F. Reinhardt , Adam J. Hauser This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.LG MSC 68Q1281P68 PACS 03.67.Lx
keywords softmaxattentionquantumcircuitBornruleHadamardtestlinearcombinationofunitariesresidualconnectionprobabilitysimplexblockencoding
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

Softmax attention is usually defined in unconstrained feature space, but when inputs and outputs live on the probability simplex, this paper argues that the whole single-head attention layer moves into quantum hardware exactly. It constructs a circuit in which scores come from a Hadamard-test overlap measurement, softmax comes from the classic Born-rule probability rule with the angle-score bijection $\theta = 2\arccos(e^{z/2})$ that makes the squared-cosine family equal the exponential family pointwise, temperature comes from repeating the same post-selected measurement, and the residual comes from one ancilla prepared at angle $\pi/2$. The learned matrices $W_Q$, $W_K$, $W_V$ become rotation-gate angles. The main theorem says the Born-rule readout equals the classical layer exactly in the infinite-shot limit, provided the classical layer is read with the paper's stated conventions: amplitude lifts $\sqrt{x_i}$, normalized overlaps, and row-shifted scores. If right, it gives a component-by-component dictionary rather than a black-box simulation, and it turns the softmax temperature from a hyperparameter into a physical repetition count.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the angle-score bijection $\theta = 2\arccos(e^{z/2})$, which converts a classical score into a rotation angle so that measurement probability is the softmax weight; the identity $\beta = L$, which turns $L$ post-selected rounds into inverse temperature; the column-loading value channel, a Stinespring dilation whose partial-trace diagonal equals the classical output $Y_i$; and the gated single-ancilla residual, a linear combination of unitaries whose additive identity sits at the ancilla preparation angle $\eta = \pi/2$. These primitives are assembled from amplitude encoding, block-encoded $W_Q$ and $W_K$ contractions, a Hadamard-test overlap extraction, Born-rule cosine-squared softmax, the stochastic value channel, and the residual sandwich. The algebraic core of the dictionary is machine-checked in a formal proof assistant.

What would settle it

Take $x_1=(1/2,1/2)$ and $x_2=(1,0)$ with $W_Q=W_K=I$. The textbook attention score is $(1/2)/\sqrt{2}$, while the normalized amplitude overlap used by the circuit is $1/\sqrt{2}$; running the circuit and comparing its readout with exp-softmax on the textbook scores gives different distributions, showing that exactness holds for the amplitude-lift variant, not raw-feature attention.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the exponential softmax is the interior of the cosine-squared measurement family on the simplex: under the bijection $\theta = 2\arccos(e^{z/2})$, the identity $\cos^2(\theta/2)/\sum_l \cos^2(\theta_l/2) = e^z/\sum_l e^{z_l}$ holds pointwise for $z \le 0$. This makes Born-rule readout a native softmax, and the construction composes that softmax with Hadamard-test overlaps for scores, a deterministic column-loading channel for values, and a single-ancilla residual gate. The master equivalence (Theorem 27) states that a quantum circuit with one measure-and-reload step per attention score reproduces the classical single-head gated attention layer exactly in the infinite-shot limit under the probability-simplex assumption. Exactness is conditional: the classical layer is the lifted-feature, normalized-score, row-shifted variant defined in Remark 2, not textbook attention on raw feature vectors. A finite-depth fully coherent exact circuit is provably impossible for affine score encodings; the coherent alternative is $\epsilon$-approximate via quantum singular value transformation.

Load-bearing premise

The equivalence is exact only for the redefined classical layer of Remark 2: features enter as amplitude lifts $\sqrt{x_i}$, scores are normalized unit-norm overlaps, and scores are row-shifted to be non-positive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Theorem 27 is correct, any single-head attention layer whose data are probability vectors admits a gate-level quantum implementation with no classical softmax normalization step: the simplex constraint is automatic from the Born rule.
  • The softmax temperature is no longer a free hyperparameter in the quantum realization: $\beta = L$, the number of repeated post-selected rounds, so cooling the attention distribution costs shots and the post-selection rate reads off the Gibbs partition function.
  • The cosine-squared softmax is a strict extension of exponential softmax: it can return exactly zero attention weights at finite angle $\theta = \pi$, which exponential softmax cannot do with finite scores.
  • Exactness requires breaking full coherence with one measure-and-reload step per score; the paper proves that a finite-depth fully coherent version cannot be exact and is only $\epsilon$-close via quantum singular value transformation.
  • For inference on classical data, no speedup is claimed: the per-layer shot budget is $\Omega(n^2/\varepsilon^2)$ naively, or $\Omega(n^2/\varepsilon)$ with amplitude estimation, so the contribution is structural exactness rather than efficiency.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the dictionary is not tied to exponential softmax specifically; any bijective score-to-angle map on a bounded domain would generate a legitimate Born-rule softmax family, and the paper's bijection is one such choice.
  • Editorial extension: because the construction rewrites attention scores as normalized amplitude overlaps, it is best understood as a quantum-native attention variant defined in Hellinger-like geometry rather than a simulation of standard attention on raw features.
  • Editorial extension: the cosine-squared softmax is a plausible classical drop-in attention nonlinearity for simplex-valued generative models, where it would add sparse-attention expressivity at finite parameters; the paper raises this as an empirical question, and we infer it is worth testing directly.
  • Editorial extension: replacing the measure-and-reload sampler with amplitude estimation or other coherent score extraction creates a design trade-off between shot overhead, circuit depth, and exactness that the paper leaves open for later work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a quantum circuit that, under Assumption 1 (inputs on the probability simplex) and the conventions of Remark 2 (amplitude-lift features, normalized unit-norm overlap scores, and a row shift to non-positive scores), exactly reproduces a classical single-head softmax attention layer with residual in the infinite-shot limit. Theorem 27 assembles amplitude encoding, block-encoded Q/K projections, Hadamard-test score extraction, a Born-rule cos^2-softmax with the angle-score bijection theta = 2 arccos(e^{z/2}), an L-stage post-selected temperature realization, a column-loading channel for the column-stochastic value matrix, and a single-ancilla gated residual. The paper also proves a boundary strict-extension of the cos^2 family to sparse attention, a finite-depth no-go for coherent QSVT realization of affinely encoded scores, an epsilon-approximate coherent QSVT alternative, and reports Lean 4 machine-checked proofs of the algebraic identities.

Significance. If the claims are read under their stated conventions, this is a careful and honest construction. The algebraic identities are correct, the scope limitations are stated explicitly, the absence of a speedup claim is candid, and the Lean-checked core is a genuine strength. The paper provides a useful dictionary that maps each mechanism of a simplex-valued attention layer to a specific quantum primitive, and it gives a precise boundary between what can be realized exactly with measure-and-reload and what cannot be realized exactly in finite-depth coherent QSVT. The finite-shot and gate-count analysis is correspondingly frank about the lack of practical advantage for single-layer inference on classical data.

major comments (2)
  1. [Theorem 27; Remark 2; Section 2.1] The exact equivalence is stated for a classical layer that has been redefined in several ways: the features presented to W_Q and W_K are the amplitude lifts sqrt(x_i) rather than x_i; the score is the normalized overlap Re<q_i|k_j> rather than Q_i^T K_j / sqrt(d); and the residual in Eq. (4) is the equal-weight convex combination (1/2)(Y_i + x_i), not the standard transformer residual x_i + Y_i. For W_Q = W_K = I the score reduces to the Bhattacharyya coefficient sum_m sqrt(x_im x_jm), not the inner product x_i dot x_j. Although Remark 2 states the first two conventions, the title and abstract present the result as a realization of "softmax attention" without these qualifications. Because the target layer is load-bearing for the central claim, the headline should be reframed and the abstract should state explicitly that the classical target is the amplitude-lift, normalized-score, convex-residual layer.
  2. [Theorem 27; Section 11, step 8] The statement that the Born-rule readout of Q(X) "equals" the classical layer needs a sampler-semantics clarification. Theorem 23 yields the output row Y_i only conditionally on the A-register outcome i, and a single run of the full circuit samples (i,j) from the joint distribution (1/n) A_ij rather than producing the full output matrix. Recovering all n rows requires either conditioning on A (which collapses the superposition) or n repeated runs. The theorem should state that the equivalence is distributional in the infinite-shot limit over these samples, rather than implying that a single circuit evaluation returns the entire classical output matrix deterministically.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 10; Code availability] The machine-checking claim cannot be independently verified because the repository URL and commit hash are placeholders ("<repository URL>, commit<hash>"). Please provide a permanent archive, such as a Zenodo DOI, with the Lake project pinned to the stated toolchain.
  2. [Abstract; Theorem 20] The abstract says the fully-coherent variant is epsilon-approximate "in the infinite depth limit," but Theorem 20 gives a finite-depth bound O(sqrt(max{c, log(1/epsilon)}) log(1/epsilon)); the abstract should be aligned with the finite-depth statement.
  3. [Section 8.1; Corollary 25] Calling eta = pi/2 the "standard transformer additive identity" is misleading because Eq. (4) uses the equal-weight convex combination (1/2)(Y_i + x_i), not x_i + Y_i; please use "equal-weight convex combination" or explicitly note that this is the simplex-adapted residual.
  4. [Remark 10; Theorem 27] The composed Hadamard-test form of Remark 10 requires estimating the post-selection rates a_q^2 and a_k^2 to recover the normalized score z_ij, so the "one measure-and-reload step per attention score" in Theorem 27 should mention that this auxiliary estimation may be part of the same step.
  5. [Section 12.3] The row-TV bound "E ||A_hat_i - A_i||_TV lesssim sqrt(n/N)" is stated without an explicit constant; please either state the universal constant or say the bound holds up to a constant independent of n and N.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: all claimed equivalences are explicit constructions, with the only caveat being a stated scope convention that relabels the classical target rather than a derivation that feeds on its own conclusion.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and constructive. Theorem 13's angle-score bijection θ=2 arccos(e^{z/2}) is introduced as a parametrization, so cos²(θ/2)=e^z and the pointwise equality of cos²-softmax and exp-softmax follows by direct substitution; this is a construction, not a fitted prediction. Theorem 16 and Corollary 17 derive β=L by multiplying independent post-selection probabilities; no temperature parameter is fit. Theorem 23 is a direct partial-trace computation whose diagonal is Σ_j A_ij(W_V x_j); the column-loading channel is deliberately built to make that trace exact. Theorem 24 with Remark 26 derives the residual by an explicit LCU sandwich, using the incoherent trace-out variant so the probability-level diagonal is cos²(η/2)x + sin²(η/2)y, which at η=π/2 is the additive residual. There are no fitted parameters, no post-hoc data splits, and no load-bearing self-citations; the external citations (universality, QSVT, state synthesis) are standard results used only for parts the equivalence theorem explicitly says it does not depend on. The only caveat is scope, not circularity: Remark 2 explicitly redefines the classical layer to take amplitude-lift features and normalized Hadamard-overlap scores, so Theorem 27's target is not raw-feature dot-product attention; the equivalence is exact only under that disclosed convention. A stated convention that changes the theorem's domain is a validity limitation, not a reduction of the derivation to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The construction introduces no fitted free parameters: all rotation angles and measurement weights are either learnable variables or chosen hyperparameters, and no number is adjusted to make a prediction match data. The load-bearing assumptions are the probability-simplex domain restriction, the variational density of the rotation-CRY ansatz, the standard block-encoding existence lemma, the cited QSVT approximation result, and the state-preparation oracle model. No new physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: input rows lie on the probability simplex and W_V is column-stochastic.
    The whole construction operates on the probability-simplex regime; outside it, the amplitude lift to the unit sphere and the column-loading value channel do not apply. Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption Density of the rotation-CRY ansatz in SU(2^{b+1}) (Lemma 8, part 3).
    The variational realization of block-encoded W_Q, W_K requires that sufficiently deep rotation-CRY circuits are dense in SU(2^{b+1}); the paper cites gate-set universality [21,22] and marks this as an architectural assumption, not Lean-verified. Section 4.1.
  • standard math QSVT polynomial approximation theorem (Theorem 20).
    The ε-approximate fully-coherent route relies on the polynomial approximation of e^{-y} on [0,2c] from Sachdeva-Vishnoi [26] and the QSVT framework of Gilyén et al. [16]; cited, not proven in the paper.
  • standard math Block-encoding existence for any contraction (Lemma 4).
    The existence of a unitary whose upper-left block equals any W with ||W||≤1 is proven by orthogonalization; the proof is non-constructive but standard.
  • domain assumption State-preparation oracle model (Section 12.1).
    Input encoding assumes either O(d)-gate state preparation for arbitrary probability vectors or a QRAM oracle; practical scaling depends on which model is adopted.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Quantum Roadmap for Softmax Attention: Exact Born-Rule Analogs for Softmax Attention on the Probability Simplex." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AEKXKHGS

@misc{pith2026260811173,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Quantum Roadmap for Softmax Attention: Exact Born-Rule Analogs for Softmax Attention on the Probability Simplex},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AEKXKHGS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11173}
}
read the original abstract

The attention mechanism forms the foundation of many modern AI models such as the Transformer. In one subclass of problems where attention is used, inputs and outputs are bound to the probability simplex so that all outputs sum to one. In this setting, softmax attention admits an exact, component-by-component quantum realization. Attention scores are Hadamard-test statistics on block-encoded projections of amplitude-encoded inputs. The exponential softmax is the interior of a cosine-squared family generated by Born-rule measurement under an exact bijection, whose boundary expresses sparse attention with exact zeros at finite parameter values. The softmax temperature is a repetition count where post-selected measurement rounds realize discretized inverse temperature exactly. Value aggregation is a deterministic column-loading channel that dilates the column-stochastic value matrix. The gated residual is the preparation angle of a single ancilla, with the additive identity at a mixing angle of {\pi}/2. Every learnable parameter is a rotation-gate angle. The composed layer is exact in the infinite-shot limit with one measure-and-reload step per attention score; a fully-coherent variant is {\epsilon}-approximate via quantum singular value transformation in the infinite depth limit. The algebraic core is machine-checked in Lean 4.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11173 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The dictionary at a glance: the gated single-head attention layer on the probability simplex, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Born-rule encoding diagram. The Born-rule simplex constraint P i |αi | 2 = 1 replaces the classical softmax simplex projection automatically: |xi⟩B is unit-norm by construction. This is visualized in fig. 2 where B represents the Born-rule lift operation state preparation unitary. 4 Q, K projections via block encoding The classical WQ is a generic real matrix; a unitary VQ maps unit vectors to unit vectors. To reali… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Q, K projection diagram. 4.1 Variational realization via rotation-CRY ansatz Lemma 4 guarantees a unitary V realizing W as its upper-left block, but is non-constructive. The implementation uses a parameterized circuit family that makes the construction explicit and trainable. Construction 7 (Hardware-efficient rotation-CRY ansatz). On b + 1 qubits (data register B plus one block-encoding ancilla), define UL(Θ) by L … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hadamard-/swap-test diagram. Remark 10 (Oracle status of ctrl-prep and the composed variant). Lemma 9 treats ctrl-prepij as an oracle for the normalized states |qi⟩, |kj ⟩. In the composed circuit these are post-selected block￾encoding outputs, and post-selection canno…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Quantum attention diagram. ring rw [h_expand] ring 6 Born-rule normalization is a softmax Definition 11 (Quantum attention map). Let θij be an angle parameter, supplied either by the measure-and-reload step (Theorem 27) or as a free learnable parameter (Theorem 14). De…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Trotter factorization diagram. 6.2 Trotter as one of infinitely many factorizations The single-stage equivalence above is the simplest realization. Multi-stage post-selected construc￾tions provide a continuous family of equivalent realizations, with the equal-angle Tro…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Stochastic value channel diagram. 7 Weighted-sum value loading Construction 22 (Stochastic value channel). After the attention map produces |i⟩A P j eaij |j⟩S|0⟩B′|0⟩BV , apply two unitaries. First, the j-controlled token encoding Uenc : |j⟩S|0⟩B′ → |j⟩S|xj ⟩B′ (the en…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Gated single-ancilla linear combination of unitaries residual addition diagram. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Complete single-head quantum attention and residual addition diagram. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. InAdvances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, pages 5998–6008, 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Deep residual learning for im- age recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for im- age recognition. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 770–778, 2016

    2016

  3. [3]

    Highway networks, 2015

    Rupesh Kumar Srivastava, Klaus Greff, and J¨ urgen Schmidhuber. Highway networks, 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Rethinking attention with Performers

    Krzysztof Choromanski, Valerii Likhosherstov, David Dohan, Xingyou Song, Andreea Gane, Tamas Sarlos, Peter Hawkins, Jared Davis, Afroz Mohiuddin, Lukasz Kaiser, David Belanger, Lucy Colwell, and Adrian Weller. Rethinking attention with Performers. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Transformer dissection: An unified understanding for transformer’s attention via the lens of kernel

    Yao-Hung Hubert Tsai, Shaojie Bai, Makoto Yamada, Louis-Philippe Morency, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Transformer dissection: An unified understanding for transformer’s attention via the lens of kernel. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Nat- ural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Pr...

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Quantum Science and Technology

    Maria Schuld and Francesco Petruccione.Supervised Learning with Quantum Computers. Quantum Science and Technology. Springer, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Bromley, Juan Miguel Arrazola, Soran Jahangiri, Josh Izaac, Nicol´ as Quesada, Alain Delgado Gran, Maria Schuld, Jeremy Swinarton, Zeid Zabaneh, and Nathan Killoran

    Thomas R. Bromley, Juan Miguel Arrazola, Soran Jahangiri, Josh Izaac, Nicol´ as Quesada, Alain Delgado Gran, Maria Schuld, Jeremy Swinarton, Zeid Zabaneh, and Nathan Killoran. Applications of near-term photonic quantum computers: software and algorithms.Quantum Science and Technology, 5(3):034010, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Yaron Lipman, Ricky T. Q. Chen, Heli Ben-Hamu, Maximilian Nickel, and Matthew Le. Flow matching for generative modeling. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023

    2023

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Ricky T. Q. Chen and Yaron Lipman. Flow matching on general geometries. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Dirichlet flow matching with applications to DNA sequence design, 2024

    Pavel Avdeyev, Chenlai Shen, Charles Slater, Vinay Birodkar, Adam Lerer, and Andreas Krause. Dirichlet flow matching with applications to DNA sequence design, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Richemond, Arnaud Doucet, Robin Strudel, Chris Dyer, Conor Durkan, Curtis Hawthorne, R´ emi Leblond, Will Grathwohl, and Jonas Adler

    Sander Dieleman, Laurent Sartran, Arman Roshannai, Nikolay Savinov, Yaroslav Ganin, Pierre H. Richemond, Arnaud Doucet, Robin Strudel, Chris Dyer, Conor Durkan, Curtis Hawthorne, R´ emi Leblond, Will Grathwohl, and Jonas Adler. Continuous diffusion for cate- gorical data, 2022. 30

    2022

  4. [12]

    Quantum vision transformers.Quantum, 8:1265, 2024

    El Amine Cherrat, Iordanis Kerenidis, Natansh Mathur, Jonas Landman, Martin Strahm, and Yun Yvonna Li. Quantum vision transformers.Quantum, 8:1265, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    QSAN: A near- term achievable quantum self-attention network, 2022

    Jinjing Shi, Ren-Xin Zhao, Wenxuan Wang, Shichao Zhang, and Xuelong Li. QSAN: A near- term achievable quantum self-attention network, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Quantum complex-valued self-attention model, 2025

    Fu Chen, Qinglin Zhao, Li Feng, Longfei Tang, Yangbin Lin, and Haitao Huang. Quantum complex-valued self-attention model, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Quantum transformer: Accelerating model inference via quantum linear algebra, 2024

    Naixu Guo, Zhan Yu, Matthew Choi, Yizhan Han, Aman Agrawal, Kouhei Nakaji, Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, and Patrick Rebentrost. Quantum transformer: Accelerating model inference via quantum linear algebra, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics

    Andr´ as Gily´ en, Yuan Su, Guang Hao Low, and Nathan Wiebe. Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 193–204, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Childs, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D

    Andrew M. Childs, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D. Somma. Quantum algorithm for systems of linear equations with exponentially improved dependence on precision.SIAM Journal on Computing, 46(6):1920–1950, 2017

    1920

  10. [18]

    Childs and Nathan Wiebe

    Andrew M. Childs and Nathan Wiebe. Hamiltonian simulation using linear combinations of unitary operations.Quantum Information and Computation, 12(11–12):901–924, 2012

    2012

  11. [19]

    The Lean 4 theorem prover and programming language

    Leonardo de Moura and Sebastian Ullrich. The Lean 4 theorem prover and programming language. InAutomated Deduction – CADE 28, volume 12699 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 625–635. Springer, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    The Lean mathematical library

    The mathlib Community. The Lean mathematical library. InProceedings of the 9th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs (CPP), pages 367–381, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Bennett, Richard Cleve, David P

    Adriano Barenco, Charles H. Bennett, Richard Cleve, David P. DiVincenzo, Norman Margolus, Peter Shor, Tycho Sleator, John A. Smolin, and Harald Weinfurter. Elementary gates for quantum computation.Physical Review A, 52(5):3457–3467, 1995

    1995

  14. [22]

    Bremner, Christopher M

    Michael J. Bremner, Christopher M. Dawson, Jennifer L. Dodd, Alexei Gilchrist, Aram W. Harrow, Duncan Mortimer, Michael A. Nielsen, and Tobias J. Osborne. Practical scheme for quantum computation with any two-qubit entangling gate.Physical Review Letters, 89(24):247902, 2002

    2002

  15. [23]

    The effect of data encoding on the expressive power of variational quantum machine learning models.Physical Review A, 103(3):032430, 2021

    Maria Schuld, Ryan Sweke, and Johannes Jakob Meyer. The effect of data encoding on the expressive power of variational quantum machine learning models.Physical Review A, 103(3):032430, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Shende, Stephen S

    Vivek V. Shende, Stephen S. Bullock, and Igor L. Markov. Synthesis of quantum-logic circuits. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 25(6):1000– 1010, 2006

    2006

  17. [25]

    Quantum fingerprinting

    Harry Buhrman, Richard Cleve, John Watrous, and Ronald de Wolf. Quantum fingerprinting. Physical Review Letters, 87(16), Sept 2001. 31

    2001

  18. [26]

    Sushant Sachdeva and Nisheeth K. Vishnoi. Faster algorithms via approximation theory. Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science, 9(2):125–210, 2014

    2014

  19. [27]

    B. L. Higgins, D. W. Berry, S. D. Bartlett, H. M. Wiseman, and G. J. Pryde. Entanglement-free Heisenberg-limited phase estimation.Nature, 450(7168):393–396, 2007

    2007

  20. [28]

    Wiseman and Gerard J

    Howard M. Wiseman and Gerard J. Milburn.Quantum Measurement and Control. Cambridge University Press, 2009

    2009

  21. [29]

    Fowler, Matteo Mariantoni, John M

    Austin G. Fowler, Matteo Mariantoni, John M. Martinis, and Andrew N. Cleland. Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation.Physical Review A, 86(3):032324, 2012

    2012

  22. [30]

    Barbara M. Terhal. Quantum error correction for quantum memories.Reviews of Modern Physics, 87(2):307–346, 2015

    2015

  23. [31]

    Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas.Physical Review A, 71(2):022316, 2005

    Sergey Bravyi and Alexei Kitaev. Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas.Physical Review A, 71(2):022316, 2005

    2005

  24. [32]

    Quantum amplitude amplifi- cation and estimation.Contemporary Mathematics, 305:53–74, 2002

    Gilles Brassard, Peter Høyer, Michele Mosca, and Alain Tapp. Quantum amplitude amplifi- cation and estimation.Contemporary Mathematics, 305:53–74, 2002

    2002

  25. [33]

    A. D. C´ orcoles, Maika Takita, Ken Inoue, Scott Lekuch, Zlatko K. Minev, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta. Exploiting dynamic quantum circuits in a quantum algorithm with superconducting qubits.Physical Review Letters, 127(10):100501, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    L. C. G. Govia, P. Jurcevic, C. J. Wood, N. Kanazawa, S. T. Merkel, and D. C. McKay. A randomized benchmarking suite for mid-circuit measurements.New Journal of Physics, 25(12):123016, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Quantum random access memory

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone. Quantum random access memory. Physical Review Letters, 100(16):160501, 2008

    2008

  28. [36]

    Yoder, Guang Hao Low, and Isaac L

    Theodore J. Yoder, Guang Hao Low, and Isaac L. Chuang. Fixed-point quantum search with an optimal number of queries.Physical Review Letters, 113(21):210501, 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    Andr´ e F. T. Martins and Ram´ on Fernandez Astudillo. From softmax to sparsemax: A sparse model of attention and multi-label classification. InProceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), volume 48 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Research, pa...

    2016

  30. [38]

    Correia, Vlad Niculae, and Andr´ e F

    Gon¸ calo M. Correia, Vlad Niculae, and Andr´ e F. T. Martins. Adaptively sparse transformers. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP- IJCNLP), ...

    2019

  31. [39]

    Ben Peters, Vlad Niculae, and Andr´ e F. T. Martins. Sparse sequence-to-sequence models. InProceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 1504–1519, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Dauphin, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and David Grangier

    Yann N. Dauphin, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and David Grangier. Language modeling with gated convolutional networks. InProceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), volume 70 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 933–941, 2017. 32

    2017

  33. [41]

    McClean, Sergio Boixo, Vadim N

    Jarrod R. McClean, Sergio Boixo, Vadim N. Smelyanskiy, Ryan Babbush, and Hartmut Neven. Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes.Nature Communications, 9:4812, 2018

    2018

  34. [42]

    Cerezo, Akira Sone, Tyler Volkoff, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J

    M. Cerezo, Akira Sone, Tyler Volkoff, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J. Coles. Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits.Nature Communications, 12:1791, 2021. 33

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.