Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Particle Swarm Optimization for Quantum Circuit Synthesis: Performance Analysis and Insights

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that particle swarm optimization, with quantum circuits encoded as lists of gate instructions, can synthesize small quantum circuits for the MaxOne problem and reach its best fitness in fewer iterations than a genetic…

desk verdict A well-written exploratory PSO-for-quantum-circuit paper undone by a concrete implementation bug and an unrerun GA baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02898 v1 pith:2Q3NOIBD submitted 2025-06-22 cs.NE cs.AI

Mirza Hizriyan Nubli Hidayat , Tan Chye Cheah This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NEcs.AI
keywords particleswarmoptimizationquantumcircuitsynthesisMaxOneproblemevolutionarycomputationencodinginertiaweightfitnessevaluationassemblylanguage
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

Particle swarm optimization is usually a numerical search over real-valued vectors, but this paper recasts it so each particle is a quantum circuit: a list of gate instructions in a quantum assembly language. Velocity and position updates become sampling operations that pull instructions from the particle's previous circuit, its personal best circuit, and the swarm's best circuit. On a 5-qubit MaxOne task, where the goal is to maximize the probability of measuring the all-ones state, the resulting PSO finds circuits with high fitness, and the paper suggests it reaches its best fitness in fewer iterations than a genetic algorithm baseline. The paper also finds that putting more weight on the swarm's global best than on each particle's own best sustains higher fitness, while a time-varying inertia weight sometimes improves the search but not consistently. If the convergence claim holds, swarm intelligence becomes a viable alternative to genetic search for generating small quantum circuits.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the particle-as-instruction-list: a circuit's position is its current list of quantum assembly instructions, and its velocity is a list of gate changes sampled from the previous velocity, personal best, and global best via the random.sample function. The Hadamard-first initialization puts every qubit in equal superposition, and the two fitness functions from the genetic-algorithm baseline convert the simulator's output probabilities into scalar rewards: $FE_1 = P_m S_m$ for the maximum state and $FE_2 = \sum_k P_k S_k$ over all states. This list-sampling reinterpretation is what lets a continuous optimization metaheuristic act on discrete quantum circuits.

What would settle it

Run the PSO and the genetic-algorithm baseline on the same 5-qubit MaxOne problem with identical seeds, the same iteration budget, the same fitness function, and the same circuit encoding; if across many seeds the GA reaches the same best fitness in no more iterations, the paper's central convergence claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that PSO can synthesize quantum circuits for the MaxOne problem by representing each candidate circuit as a list of quantum instructions and redefining PSO's arithmetic on lists. The proposed velocity update is $V_i(t) = \mathrm{random.sample}(V_i(t-1), w_t) + \mathrm{random.sample}(pbest_i, c_1) + \mathrm{random.sample}(gbest_i, c_2)$, so the inertia weight and learning coefficients control how many instructions are sampled from the previous velocity, the personal best, and the global best. Fitness is evaluated on a 5-qubit circuit, starting each circuit with a Hadamard gate on every qubit, using either the probability of the all-ones state times its integer value or a weighted sum over all states. The paper argues that this PSO converges to the best fitness faster than the genetic algorithm of the earlier study, that social learning dominates cognitive learning on this problem, and that time-varying inertia weight can improve optimization, though its advantage over constant weight is not consistent across runs.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison with the genetic algorithm assumes the two implementations are directly comparable, but the runs differ in encoding, mutation mechanics, and random seeds, and the paper itself says the faster-convergence observation cannot be substantially proven because of this difference.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A particle-swarm search over gate lists can generate working quantum circuits on a standard simulator without hand-designed circuit structure.
  • Social learning, meaning a larger $c_2$ weight on the global best, is the recommended learning mode for this synthesis task, since it kept particle fitness higher across iterations.
  • A time-varying inertia weight can improve the balance between exploration and exploitation, although the paper's runs do not show a consistent winner against constant weight.
  • Faster convergence relative to the genetic algorithm may come with a cost: the paper notes the PSO may be getting trapped at local maxima, so convergence speed alone is not evidence of global optimality.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: the list-sampling encoding is not limited to MaxOne; the same particle-as-instruction-list design could evolve circuits for other objectives, provided the fitness function can score a gate list.
  • Editorial: because the GA comparison uses different seeds and mutation mechanics, a matched experiment controlling seeds, iteration budget, and encoding is the minimal test that would separate PSO's claimed speed advantage from run-to-run noise.
  • Editorial: the paper's local-maxima caveat suggests a concrete next experiment: add restart, mutation, or multi-swarm diversity maintenance and test whether the swarm escapes the plateau it currently converges to.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a particle swarm optimization (PSO) approach for synthesizing quantum circuits that solve a 5-qubit MaxOne problem. Quantum circuits are encoded as lists of OpenQASM instructions; PSO position and velocity are represented as lists, and the velocity update uses Python's random.sample on previous velocity, personal best, and global best lists. The authors report experiments comparing three learning configurations (balanced, cognitive, social), two inertia-weight strategies (constant and time-varying), and a comparison with a genetic algorithm (GA) from prior work, concluding that PSO converges faster to the optimal solution.

Significance. If the implementation were sound, using PSO as an alternative to GA for quantum circuit synthesis could be a modest contribution, since the paper's encoding and fitness evaluation are adapted from an established GA framework. The paper does provide a parameter study of learning coefficients and inertia weight, and it explicitly discusses the possibility of premature convergence. However, the contribution is undermined by the fact that the described algorithm cannot be executed as written, by the absence of any statistical control in the experiments, and by the authors' own admission that the central GA comparison is not substantially proven. No code, seeds, or reproducibility artifacts are provided, so the results reported in Figures 5–9 are not independently verifiable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.c, Eqs. (5)–(7); Section 5.a; Section 5.b] The velocity update as written cannot be executed. The text identifies random.sample as Python's built-in function, which requires an integer sample size k. Equation (5) and the inertia-weighted variant call random.sample with c1=1.5, c2=1.5, and with w_t that decreases linearly from 1 to 0.3, producing non-integer sizes during most iterations. No rounding, truncation, or alternative definition is provided. Consequently, the stated algorithm is not executable, and the convergence curves in Figures 5–9 cannot have been produced by the specified update rule. This affects every experimental conclusion in the paper.
  2. [Section 5.c] The central claim that PSO converges faster than the GA is not experimentally supported. The GA baseline from [7] is not rerun under matched conditions; the paper itself states that the faster convergence 'cannot be substantially proven due to a difference in seed and randomness.' With different encodings, mutation mechanisms, and random seeds, the comparison in Figure 5 does not isolate the effect of the search algorithm. A matched experiment that runs both algorithms on the same problem representation, population size, iteration budget, and random seed protocol is necessary before any convergence-rate comparison can be made.
  3. [Section 5, first paragraph] The paper reports 'random instances of experimentation' with no seeds, no number of repetitions, and no error bars or statistical tests. All conclusions about learning-capability comparison, inertia-weight comparison, and GA comparison rest on single runs. Without repeated trials and some measure of variance, the reported differences in fitness curves cannot be distinguished from stochastic fluctuations. This is a load-bearing issue for the empirical claims.
  4. [Section 5.b, inertia weight formula] The time-varying inertia weight is defined as w_t = (w1 - w2)((t_max - t)/t) + w2. As written, this expression is undefined at t=0 (division by zero), and for t>0 it does not produce the standard linear decrease from w1 to w2 described in the text and in the cited reference [27]. The intended formula is presumably w_t = (w1 - w2)((t_max - t)/t_max) + w2. Since this equation defines the TVIW experiments whose results are analyzed in Figures 7–9, the error must be corrected and the experiments rerun or the discrepancy explained.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.c, Eqs. (5)-(6)] The list-addition operation in the velocity and position updates is never defined: it is not clear whether lists are concatenated, element-wise merged, or truncated to some maximum length. This ambiguity affects reproducibility.
  2. [Section 4.d, FE2 equation] The notation n in the FE2 formula is described as 'the total number of qubit states,' which for a 5-qubit circuit is 32, not the number of qubits; this should be stated explicitly to avoid confusion with the qubit count.
  3. [Section 6, Conclusion] The conclusion that 'faster convergence could potentially indicate it became stuck at a local maxima' contradicts the abstract's unqualified statement that 'PSO converges more quickly to the optimal solution'; the abstract should reflect the caveat.
  4. [General] The figures (Figure 5–9) are not included in the text accessible to the reader, and their captions are too terse to be self-contained; the paper should either include the plots or describe the quantitative results in the text.
  5. [Section 3.d, Section 5] There are several typos and formatting issues, such as 'discrete verison' and 'an d experimentation' in Section 3.d, and inconsistent equation numbering in Section 4.c where the inertia-weight update is not given its own number.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Headline faster-convergence claim leans entirely on the authors' own prior GA paper ([7]), which the paper itself concedes cannot be proven; the rest of the derivation is self-contained.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 5.c (General Comparison of GA and PSO); abstract and Section 6 repeat the claim; the GA baseline [7] is Ong and Tan, co-authored by the present paper's author Tan Chye Cheah.]
    "The results, such as Figure 5, show that the PSO implementation converges to the best fitness value (over a specific run) faster than the GA implementation. This observance cannot be substantially proven due to a difference in seed and randomness, but throughout various experimentation, it could be taken that the PSO implementation converges to the best fitness (given a population) faster than the GA."

    The central conclusion that 'PSO converges more quickly' is a comparative claim whose only GA-side evidence is [7], a prior paper co-authored by the present paper's author (Tan Chye Cheah). The GA is never re-run under matched seeds, encodings, or randomness, and the paper itself concedes the observance 'cannot be substantially proven due to a difference in seed and randomness.' Without [7] no GA baseline exists, so the headline result rests on an unverified overlapping self-citation rather than on an independent benchmark. The PSO's own convergence curves are computed from Qiskit Aer fitness and are not defined in terms of the claimed outcome, so this is partial, comparison-level circularity, not a reduction of the fitness or velocity equations.

full rationale

The PSO synthesis pipeline is, on its face, self-contained: the MaxOne fitness is evaluated by Qiskit Aer from circuit state vectors, the velocity/position updates in Eqs. (5)-(6) are stated a priori with hand-picked learning coefficients, and no fitted parameter is later relabeled as a prediction. The learning-capability and inertia-weight experiments are internal comparisons, and the paper itself notes the opposite ordering sometimes occurs (TVIW praised in Section 6 but constant IW better in Figure 9), which is inconsistency rather than circularity. The one load-bearing circular element is the GA baseline. The headline conclusion, 'The results suggest PSO converges more quickly to the optimal solution,' is a comparative claim whose only GA data source is [7], a paper co-authored by the present paper's author, and the GA is never re-run under matched seeds or encodings. The paper concedes in Section 5.c that the observance 'cannot be substantially proven due to a difference in seed and randomness,' and Section 6 likewise concedes the faster convergence may simply reflect being trapped at a local maximum. The central claim therefore rests on an unverified overlapping self-citation, not on an independent external benchmark. As correctness rather than circularity, I also note that the specified velocity update V_i(t) = random.sample(V_i(t-1), w_t) + random.sample(pbest_i, c1) + random.sample(gbest_i, c2) uses w_t = 0.3 and c1 = c2 = 1.5 as Python random.sample sizes, which the paper's own cited Python documentation requires to be integers; this executability flaw undermines the reported experiments but is not a circularity pattern. Overall: the PSO's own convergence behavior is independently computed, so the derivation does not reduce to its inputs; the circularity is partial, confined to the self-citation-backed GA comparison. Score 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The list-of-instructions encoding is a representational choice, not a new entity. The main burden is carried by algorithmic assumptions and hand-chosen hyperparameters.

free parameters (6)
  • c1 = 1.5 or 4.0 depending on learning mode
    Cognitive learning coefficient; hand-chosen values in Section 5.a.
  • c2 = 1.5 or 4.0 depending on learning mode
    Social learning coefficient; hand-chosen values in Section 5.a.
  • inertia weight w = 1.0 constant or decreasing from 1.0 to 0.3
    Hand-chosen values in Section 5.b.
  • population size = 50
    Stated in Section 5; 50 particles per run.
  • number of iterations = 30 (t = 0 to 29)
    Stated in Section 5; the paper acknowledges more iterations are usually needed.
  • maximum circuit length = not specified
    The encoding limits program size (Section 4.b) but no explicit maximum gate count is given.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Quantum circuits can be encoded as finite lists of OpenQASM instructions, and PSO position and velocity can be implemented as list operations using random.sample.
    Introduced in Section 4.c; this representation is central to the method and is not formally justified beyond algorithmic convenience.
  • domain assumption Initial Hadamard gates applied to all qubits produce a uniform superposition, giving a well-defined MaxOne task.
    Assumed in Section 4.b; standard quantum mechanics, but the choice of mandatory Hadamard layer constrains the search space.
  • domain assumption FE1 = P_m * S_m (or FE2) faithfully scores how well a circuit solves the MaxOne problem.
    Taken from [7] and used in Section 4.d; no justification is given for why these weighted probability scores are the right objective for MaxOne.
  • domain assumption Qiskit Aer's statevector simulation returns correct output probabilities for the synthesized circuits.
    Used throughout Section 4.a and 5; standard tooling assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Particle Swarm Optimization for Quantum Circuit Synthesis: Performance Analysis and Insights." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2Q3NOIBD

@misc{pith2026250702898,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Particle Swarm Optimization for Quantum Circuit Synthesis: Performance Analysis and Insights},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2Q3NOIBD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02898}
}
read the original abstract

This paper discusses how particle swarm optimization (PSO) can be used to generate quantum circuits to solve an instance of the MaxOne problem. It then analyzes previous studies on evolutionary algorithms for circuit synthesis. With a brief introduction to PSO, including its parameters and algorithm flow, the paper focuses on a method of quantum circuit encoding and representation as PSO parameters. The fitness evaluation used in this paper is the MaxOne problem. The paper presents experimental results that compare different learning abilities and inertia weight variations in the PSO algorithm. A comparison is further made between the PSO algorithm and a genetic algorithm for quantum circuit synthesis. The results suggest PSO converges more quickly to the optimal solution.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    A genetic algorithm for quantum circuit generation in openqasm

    T. J. Ong and C. C. Tan, “A genetic algorithm for quantum circuit generation in openqasm”, in Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. Cham: Springer Int. Publishing, 2021, pp. 97–114. Accessed: Jun. 16, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82196-8_8

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-82196-8_8 2021

  2. [27]

    Particle swarm optimization with various inertia weight variants for optimal power flow solution

    P. Umapathy, C. Venkataseshaiah, and M. S. Arumugam, “Particle swarm optimization with various inertia weight variants for optimal power flow solution”, Discrete Dyn. Nature Soc., vol. 2010, pp. 1–15, 2010. Accessed: Jul. 3, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/462145

    work page doi:10.1155/2010/462145 2010

  3. [1]

    Hello quantum world! Google publishes landmark quantum supremacy claim

    E. Gibney, “Hello quantum world! Google publishes landmark quantum supremacy claim”, Nature, vol. 574, no. 7779, pp. 461–462, Oct. 2019. Accessed: Jun. 14, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03213-z

    work page doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03213-z 2019

  4. [2]

    Algorithms for quantum computation: Discrete logarithms and factoring

    P. W. Shor, “Algorithms for quantum computation: Discrete logarithms and factoring”, in 35th Annu. Symp. Found. Comput. Sci., Santa Fe, NM, USA. IEEE Comput. Soc. Press. Accessed: Jun. 14, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/sfcs.1994.365700

    arXiv 2023

  5. [3]

    A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search

    L. K. Grover, “A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search”, in Twenty-Eighth Annu. ACM Symp., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States, May 22–24, 1996. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, 1996. Accessed: Jun. 14, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/237814.237866

    arXiv 1996

  6. [4]

    Genetic quantum algorithm and its application to combinatorial optimization problem

    Kuk-Hyun Han and Jong-Hwan Kim, “Genetic quantum algorithm and its application to combinatorial optimization problem”, in 2000 Congr. Evol. Computation, La Jolla, CA, USA. IEEE. Accessed: Jun. 20, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/cec.2000.870809

    work page arXiv

  7. [5]

    Quantum-inspired evolutionary algorithms: A survey and empirical study

    G. Zhang, “Quantum-inspired evolutionary algorithms: A survey and empirical study”, J. Heuristics, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 303–351, Jun. 2010. Accessed: Jun. 20, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10732-010-9136-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s10732-010-9136-0 2010

  8. [6]

    Circuit synthesis using particle swarm optimization

    C. Reis, J. Tenreiro Machado, A. S. F. Galhano, and J. Boaventura Cunha, “Circuit synthesis using particle swarm optimization”, in 2006 IEEE Int. Conf. Comput. Cybern., Talinn, Estonia, Aug. 20–22, 2006. IEEE, 2006. Accessed: Jun. 21, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/icccyb.2006.305723

    work page arXiv 2006

Show all 28 references
  1. [8]

    Evolutionary technique for automated synthesis of electronic circuits

    A. Stoica and C. H. Salazar-Lazaro, “Evolutionary technique for automated synthesis of electronic circuits”, U.S. Patent US7184943B1, Feb. 27, 2007

    2007

  2. [9]

    Anaconda: Simulation-based synthesis of analog circuits via stochastic pattern search

    R. Phelps, M. Krasnicki, R. A. Rutenbar, L. R. Carley, and J. R. Hellums, “Anaconda: Simulation-based synthesis of analog circuits via stochastic pattern search”, IEEE Trans. Computer-Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst., vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 703–717, Jun. 2000. Accessed: Jul. 7, ...

    doi

  3. [10]

    Automated design of combinational logic circuits by genetic algorithms

    C. A. Coello Coello, A. D. Christiansen, and A. H. Aguirre, “Automated design of combinational logic circuits by genetic algorithms”, in Artificial Neural Nets and Genetic Algorithms. Vienna: Springer Vienna, 1998, pp. 333–336. Accessed: Jul. 10, 2023. [Online]. Available: htt...

    1998 doi

  4. [11]

    Evolution of digital circuits using CUDA to determine the fitness function in genetic algorithm

    W. S. Lacerda, L. H. R. Peixoto, and T. C. d. A. Oliveira, “Evolution of digital circuits using CUDA to determine the fitness function in genetic algorithm”, in 11. Congr. Bras. Inteligencia Comput., Porto de Galinhas, Pernambuco. SBIC, 2016. Accessed: Jul. 10, 2023. [Online]....

    2016 doi

  5. [12]

    Particle swarm optimization: Basic concepts, variants and applications in power systems

    Y. del Valle, G. K. Venayagamoorthy, S. Mohagheghi, J. C. Hernandez, and R. G. Harley, “Particle swarm optimization: Basic concepts, variants and applications in power systems”, IEEE Trans. Evol. Computation, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 171–195, Apr. 2008. Accessed: Jul. 7, 2023. [Onl...

    2008

  6. [13]

    Particle swarm optimization

    J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, “Particle swarm optimization”, in ICNN'95 - Int. Conf. Neural Netw., Perth, WA, Australia. IEEE. Accessed: Jul. 8, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/icnn.1995.488968

    2023

  7. [14]

    The particle swarm: Social adaptation of knowledge

    J. Kennedy, “The particle swarm: Social adaptation of knowledge”, in 1997 IEEE Int. Conf. Evol. Computation (ICEC '97), Indianapolis, IN, USA. IEEE. Accessed: Jul. 10, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/icec.1997.592326

    1997

  8. [15]

    Multiobjective particle swarm optimization for environmental/economic dispatch problem

    M. A. Abido, “Multiobjective particle swarm optimization for environmental/economic dispatch problem”, Electric Power Syst. Res., vol. 79, no. 7, pp. 1105–1113, Jul. 2009. Accessed: Jan. 14,

    2009

  9. [16]

    On the performance of the particle swarm optimization algorithm with various inertia weight variants for computing optimal control of a class of hybrid systems

    M. S. Arumugam and M. V. C. Rao, “On the performance of the particle swarm optimization algorithm with various inertia weight variants for computing optimal control of a class of hybrid systems”, Discrete Dyn. Nature Soc., vol. 2006, pp. 1–17, 2006. Accessed: Aug. 10, 2023. [O...

    2006 doi

  10. [17]

    Analysis of evolutionary techniques for the automated implementation of digital circuits

    M. H. Zarifi, H. Satvati, and M. Baradaran-nia, “Analysis of evolutionary techniques for the automated implementation of digital circuits”, Expert Syst. With Appl., vol. 42, no. 21, pp. 7620– 7626, Nov. 2015. Accessed: Oct. 10, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.101...

    2015 doi

  11. [18]

    R. S. Zebulum, M. A. Pacheco, and M. M. B. Vellasco, Evolutionary Electronics: Automatic Design of Electronic Circuits and Systems by Genetic Algorithms. Taylor Francis Group, 2018

    2018

  12. [19]

    Genetic algorithm based design of combinational logic circuits using universal logic modules

    C. K. Vijayakumari, P. Mythili, R. K. James, and C. V. A. Kumar, “Genetic algorithm based design of combinational logic circuits using universal logic modules”, Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 46, pp. 1246–1253, 2015. Accessed: Jul. 10, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/1...

    2015 doi

  13. [20]

    [Online]

    Qiskit Aer Documentation. [Online]. Available: https://qiskit.org/ecosystem/aer/

  14. [21]

    Hadamard type operations for qubits

    A. Maitra and P. Parashar, “Hadamard type operations for qubits”, Int. J. Quantum Inf., vol. 04, no. 04, pp. 653–664, Aug. 2006. Accessed: Jul. 18, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219749906002055

    2006 doi

  15. [22]

    Both Toffoli and Controlled-NOT need little help to universal quantum computing

    Y.-Y. Shi, “Both Toffoli and Controlled-NOT need little help to universal quantum computing”, Quantum Inf. Computation, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 84–92, Jan. 2003. Accessed: Jul. 18, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.26421/qic3.1-7

    2003 doi

  16. [23]

    A. W. Cross, L. S. Bishop, J. A. Smolin, and J. M. Gambetta, Open Quantum Assembly Language. arXiv, to be published. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1707.03429

    doi arXiv

  17. [24]

    Random function

    “Random function.” Python 3 documentation. Accessed: Jul. 26, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://docs.python.org/3/library/random.html

    2023

  18. [25]

    Particle swarm optimization - A survey

    K. Kameyama, “Particle swarm optimization - A survey”, IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst., E92-D, no. 7, pp. 1354–1361, 2009. Accessed: Jul. 10, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1587/transinf.e92.d.1354

    2009 doi

  19. [26]

    Matplotlib — visualization with python

    “Matplotlib — visualization with python.” Matplotlib — Visualization with Python. Accessed: Oct. 10, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://matplotlib.org/

    2023

  20. [2024]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2009.02.005

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2009.02.005

    2009 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.