Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 46 references

HSF-S: Speed-Optimized Compilation and Acceleration for Hybrid Schrodinger-Feynman Quantum Circuit Emulation

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read HSF-S shows that path-cost-aware compilation and an HSF-specific processor can cut Hybrid Schrödinger–Feynman path cost by up to 90% and turn many timeouts into sub-second exact emulations.

desk verdict Solid compiler–accelerator co-design for HSF: rank-aware C_eff + discounted cross-SWAP + dual-slice engine turn real timeouts into usable runs; the surrogate-vs-wall-clock gap is real but secondary to the measured gains. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.10262 v1 pith:BEZZV336 submitted 2026-07-11 quant-ph cs.ET

Sechan Park , Kyeongwon Lee , Mundo Jeong , Chaebin Jung , Woojoo Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.ET
keywords HybridSchrödinger–Feynmanquantumcircuitemulationpath-costcompilationSWAPinsertionSchmidtrankFPGAacceleratorexactsimulation
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

Exact classical emulation of quantum circuits is limited either by full-state memory growth or by exponential path growth when circuits are split. Hybrid Schrödinger–Feynman (HSF) simulation keeps two half-sized state slices and only expands cross-boundary two-qubit gates into paths, but a few hub qubits that keep crossing the cut can still make the path count explode. HSF-S treats that path-branching cost as a compile-time objective: it lowers the circuit to an HSF-executable gate set, reorders gates without changing the unitary, and inserts cross-boundary SWAPs only when a discounted-gain test shows they will remove more future cross interactions than they cost. A selector always keeps the naive lowered baseline if nothing better is found, so path cost never rises. The same compiler artifacts drive a dedicated dual-slice accelerator that evaluates independent paths in parallel and accumulates only the requested amplitudes. On 56 circuits the method preserves amplitudes to floating-point precision, reduces effective path cost by as much as 90%, turns many one-hour timeouts into sub-second runs, and the prototype processor adds up to another 4.34× on the compiled workloads.

What carries the argument

The rank-aware effective path cost C_eff together with discounted-gain SWAP insertion (gain ≥ 0 after the +2 cost of the SWAP itself), which turns SWAP from a routing artifact into a compile-time path-cost transformation under a fixed bipartition.

What would settle it

Take a circuit family where HSF-S reports a large C_eff reduction, run both the naive-lowered and HSF-S-compiled versions under identical qsimh settings and the same amplitude query budget, and check whether measured runtime fails to scale roughly as 2 to the power of the reported ΔC_eff or whether any compiled circuit is slower than its naive baseline.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A fixed bipartition’s HSF path burden is dominated by recurring cross-boundary gates on a few hub qubits; by measuring that burden with the rank-aware cost C_eff = |non-SWAP cross gates| + 2|cross SWAPs|, dependency-preserving reordering plus discounted-gain SWAP insertion can relocate those hubs so that many later interactions become local, and a regression-free selector guarantees the compiled circuit never increases C_eff relative to the naive lowered baseline while remaining exactly correct for amplitude queries.

Load-bearing premise

That counting cross-boundary gates by their Schmidt ranks under a fixed half-and-half cut, after a limited sweep of window and discount parameters, is a good enough stand-in for real HSF wall-clock time that the selector will reliably produce faster circuits.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. HSF-S is a compiler–accelerator co-design for exact Hybrid Schrödinger–Feynman (HSF) quantum-circuit emulation. The compiler lowers circuits to an HSF-compatible basis, optimizes a rank-aware effective path cost C_eff = |G_cross^¬swap| + 2|G_cross^swap| under a fixed balanced bipartition via dependency-preserving reordering and discounted-gain SWAP insertion, and uses a selector that never increases C_eff relative to the naive lowered baseline. A dedicated multi-engine accelerator performs per-path dual-slice evaluation with common-prefix checkpointing and scalar accumulation, integrated into a stand-alone RISC-V SoC. Across 56 benchmarks, amplitudes match full-state qsim references to floating-point precision (worst max abs error 3.37×10^{-8}), C_eff falls by up to 90%, many timeouts become sub-second under a 1-hour budget, and the FPGA prototype at 200 MHz adds up to 4.34× speedup on compiled workloads.

Significance. Exact HSF remains a practical route for memory-constrained classical emulation, but path explosion from cross-boundary gates has limited its usefulness. Treating cross SWAP as a path-cost-aware compile-time transform (rather than a routing artifact), with an explicit rank-based surrogate and a regression-free C_eff selector, is a clear and useful systems contribution. The matching HSF-specific accelerator (path-parallel dual-slice engines, cut-rank metadata, common-state checkpointing) fills a real gap left by Schrödinger-centric GPU/FPGA designs. Strengths that should be credited include: amplitude validation against full-state qsim; a monotonic ablation of pipeline stages on aggregate C_eff (Fig. 7); a uniform 56-circuit suite with timeout accounting; and a working FPGA prototype plus 14 nm area/power numbers. If the empirical tractability gains hold under broader partitions and workloads, the work meaningfully advances resource-constrained exact emulation.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.1–3.2, Eq. (5)–(6), Table 2] §3.1–3.2 and Eq. (5)–(6): The selector guarantees only C_eff(C*) ≤ C_eff(C_naive), while wall-clock cost is T_HSF = 2^{C_eff} × W_path. Stage-3 SWAPs and denser Stage-1/2 schedules can increase gate count and thus W_path; |G| is only a weak tie-breaker in κ. The paper correctly calls C_eff a “surrogate … rather than a direct predictor” (§3.1), yet the abstract and §5.2 treat C_eff cuts as practically decisive for tractability. For small ΔC_eff (e.g., QAOA_SBM_n30_inst10: 17→14 in Table 2), a moderate W_path increase could erase the gain. Please report pre/post |G|, |G_2q|, and/or measured W_path (or per-path work) for all circuits, and either (i) show that 2^{ΔC_eff} dominates observed W_path growth in every finishing case, or (ii) strengthen the selector with an explicit W_path-aware or measured-runtime check among candidates. Clarify in the abstract that non-regression is guaranteed fo
  2. [§5.1–5.2, Table 2] §5.1–5.2 and Table 2: Most naive qsimh runs are Timeout (1h), so wall-clock non-regression is only partially observed; only eight circuits finish under both CPU-preprocessed software and hardware for the 1.87–4.34× HW claim. Preprocessing time is excluded (avg 2.81 s, max 29.2 s), which is fine for former timeouts but can matter for already-fast circuits. Please (a) add a complete finishing-pair table (or appendix) with naive vs HSF-S software runtime whenever both finish, including preprocessing as a separate column; (b) state how many circuits finish under naive vs HSF-S software; and (c) discuss whether any candidate with lower C_eff but higher measured software runtime was ever selected (or would have been under the current κ). This is needed to support the “substantially improves practical tractability” claim beyond timeout-to-finish anecdotes.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 6] Figure 6 is very dense (many stacked bars and parenthetical SWAP contributions). Consider splitting by benchmark family or moving full per-circuit numbers to a table/appendix and keeping a summary plot in the main text.
  2. [§5.2] §5.2: GPU (RTX 5090) results are mentioned only to say none finished in 1 hour, then omitted. Briefly state which backend was used (full-state vs HSF-style) and why the comparison is uninformative, so readers do not infer an incomplete experiment.
  3. [§5.1, §2.2] §5.1: The bipartition is fixed at b = ⌊n/2⌋ and never co-optimized with reordering/SWAP. A short limitations paragraph noting that static or joint partitioning could be composed with HSF-S would place the contribution more accurately relative to [16, 17].
  4. [Eq. (6)] Eq. (6) vs Eq. (5): C_eff is defined as a sum of ranks in log-domain units, while N_paths = ∏ r_i. A one-sentence reminder that after lowering every non-SWAP cross gate has r=2 and SWAP has r=4 would help readers who skip §2.1.
  5. [Abstract, §1, §5.2] Abstract and §1: “up to 2^{19}× path reduction on QAOA-SBM” is strong; ensure the main text states the corresponding C_eff drop (or product of ranks) explicitly next to that number for auditability.
  6. [Table 1] Table 1: FPGA LUTs for the accelerator dominate; a one-line note on whether state memory is the main consumer (as the text suggests) would help systems readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: C_eff is a standard rank-based surrogate optimized by search; wall-clock and amplitude claims are independent measurements.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing chain is engineering, not a first-principles derivation that collapses into its inputs. C_eff (Eq. 6) is defined from the known Schmidt ranks of the lowered HSF gate set (rank-2 controlled primitives, rank-4 SWAP), which is standard quantum information, not a quantity fitted to the reported speedups. The compiler searches reorderings and discounted-gain SWAPs and selects by C_eff; reporting the achieved C_eff reduction is the outcome of that search, not a tautological prediction of a fitted parameter. The regression-free selector only enforces C_eff(C*) ≤ C_eff(C_naive) by including the naive baseline—an explicit safety property, not a circular claim that runtime improves by definition. Amplitude correctness is checked against independent full-state qsim references; wall-clock gains and the 4.34× hardware speedup are measured on qsimh and an FPGA prototype. Self-citations (prior FPGA/RISC-V work by the group) support platform integration only and do not underwrite the path-cost model or the empirical results. Surrogate–runtime mismatch is a validity concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central empirical claims rest on standard HSF path-count mathematics, a fixed balanced bipartition, a finite hyper-parameter sweep, and the engineering artifacts (compiler stages + accelerator micro-architecture) introduced by the paper. No free parameters are fitted to the final performance numbers; the sweep merely generates candidates that the selector ranks by C_eff.

free parameters (3)
  • window-fraction set F = {0.02,0.05,0.1,0.25,0.5,0.75,1.0}
    Discrete set {0.02,0.05,0.1,0.25,0.5,0.75,1.0} used to generate L_reorder and L_swap; chosen by hand, not derived.
  • half-life set H = {0.25L,0.5L,1.0L} plus γ=1
    H ∈ {0.25L,0.5L,1.0L} (clamped ≥0.5) that defines discount γ; hand-chosen discrete options.
  • candidate cap P = min(b,12)
    P = min(b,12) limits opposite-slice candidates examined by Stage 3; engineering constant.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Total HSF path count equals the product of Schmidt ranks of all cross-boundary gates (Eq. 3).
    Standard HSF literature (Markov et al., qsimh); invoked throughout §2.1 and used to justify C_eff.
  • domain assumption After lowering to B_lower ∪ {SWAP}, every controlled primitive has rank 2 and SWAP has rank 4.
    Follows from the operator Schmidt decomposition of common two-qubit gates; stated in §2.1 and used to define C_eff (Eq. 6).
  • standard math Any topological order of a commutation-aware dependency DAG implements the same unitary.
    Used to guarantee correctness of Stages 1–2 reordering (§3.3).
  • ad hoc to paper A fixed balanced bipartition b = ⌊n/2⌋ is given and never altered by the compiler.
    Stated in §5.1; all C_eff numbers and runtime claims are relative to this choice.
invented entities (3)
  • effective path cost C_eff
    purpose: Compile-time surrogate that counts rank-2 cross gates once and rank-4 SWAPs twice.
    Defined in Eq. 6; primary objective of the entire pipeline and selector.
  • discounted-gain SWAP insertion (Stage 3)
    purpose: Greedy forward pass that inserts a cross SWAP only when the discounted number of resolved cross interactions exceeds the cost of the SWAP itself.
    Algorithm 2 and Eqs. 11–15; core novel transformation.
  • HSF-S accelerator with common-state checkpointing
    purpose: Hardware that evaluates independent paths on dual-slice Schrödinger cores and re-uses the common prefix before the first cross gate.
    §4 architecture; enables the reported 4.34× hardware speedup.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HSF-S: Speed-Optimized Compilation and Acceleration for Hybrid Schrodinger-Feynman Quantum Circuit Emulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BEZZV336

@misc{pith2026260710262,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HSF-S: Speed-Optimized Compilation and Acceleration for Hybrid Schrodinger-Feynman Quantum Circuit Emulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BEZZV336}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.10262}
}
read the original abstract

Hybrid Schrodinger-Feynman (HSF) simulation offers an attractive memory-path tradeoff for exact quantum-circuit emulation, but its practical runtime is often dominated by exponential path growth from cross-boundary two-qubit gates. Existing GPU and FPGA quantum simulators are largely optimized for full-state Schrodinger execution and therefore do not align well with HSF's path-centric workflow. This paper presents HSF-S, a compiler-accelerator co-designed framework for exact HSF-based quantum circuit emulation. HSF-S lowers input circuits to an HSF-compatible basis, formulates a rank-aware effective path-cost model, and applies dependency-preserving reordering together with discounted-gain SWAP insertion to suppress recurring cross-boundary interactions while preserving exact circuit semantics. A regression-free selector guarantees that the compiled circuit never increases effective path cost relative to the naive lowered baseline. We further design a dedicated HSF-S accelerator and execution flow, and integrate them into a stand-alone processor for efficient per-path dual-slice evaluation and final accumulation without materializing the full state vector. Across 56 benchmark circuits, HSF-S matches reference amplitudes to within floating-point precision, reduces effective path cost by up to 90.0%, and substantially improves practical tractability, including representative timeout-to-sub-second reductions under a 1-hour budget. On the resulting compiled workloads, the HSF-S processor prototype delivers up to 4.34x additional speedup.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.10262 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Key intuition of HSF-S. Under a fixed partition, a hub qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the proposed HSF-S accelerator. The host loads the compiled instruction stream together with cut-rank table and index [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Instruction format of the proposed HSF-S accelerator. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Prototype demonstration of the stand-alone HSF-S QC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Reduction in effective HSF path cost before and after HSF-S preprocessing. Gray bars denote the naive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ablation of the HSF-S pipeline. Normalized aggregate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond.Quantum, 2:79, 2018

    John Preskill. Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond.Quantum, 2:79, 2018

    2018

  2. [2]

    Variational quantum algorithms.Nature Reviews Physics, 3(9):625–644, 2021

    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(9):625–644, 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    Tannu and Moinuddin K

    Swamit S. Tannu and Moinuddin K. Qureshi. Not All Qubits 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, page 987–999. Association for Computing Machinery, 2019

    2019

  4. [4]

    Baker, Ali Javadi-Abhari, Frederic T

    Prakash Murali, Jonathan M. Baker, Ali Javadi-Abhari, Frederic T. Chong, and Margaret Martonosi. Noise-Adaptive Compiler Mappings for Noisy Intermediate- Scale Quantum Computers. InProceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, page 1015–1029. Association for Computing Ma...

    2019

  5. [5]

    Combining quantum processors with real-time classical communication.Nature, 636(8041):75–79, 2024

    Almudena Carrera Vazquez, Caroline Tornow, Diego Ristè, Stefan Woerner, Maika Takita, and Daniel J Egger. Combining quantum processors with real-time classical communication.Nature, 636(8041):75–79, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Standalone FPGA-Based QAOA Emulator for Weighted-MaxCut on Embedded Devices

    Seonghyun Choi, Kyeongwon Lee, Jae-Jin Lee, and Woojoo Lee. Standalone FPGA-Based QAOA Emulator for Weighted-MaxCut on Embedded Devices. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.11316v2, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    SV-Sim: Scalable PGAS-Based State Vector Simulation of Quantum Circuits

    Ang Li, Bo Fang, Christopher Granade, Guen Prawiroatmodjo, Bettina Heim, Martin Roetteler, and Sriram Krishnamoorthy. SV-Sim: Scalable PGAS-Based State Vector Simulation of Quantum Circuits. InSC21: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, pages 1–14, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    Noise-Aware Quantum Circuit Simulation With Decision Diagrams.IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 42(3):860–873, 2023

    Thomas Grurl, Jürgen Fuß, and Robert Wille. Noise-Aware Quantum Circuit Simulation With Decision Diagrams.IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 42(3):860–873, 2023

    2023

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Developing a grover’s quantum algorithm em- ulator on standalone fpgas: optimization and implementation.AIMS Mathematics, 9(11):30939–30971, 2024

    Seonghyun Choi and Woojoo Lee. Developing a grover’s quantum algorithm em- ulator on standalone fpgas: optimization and implementation.AIMS Mathematics, 9(11):30939–30971, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Precision-aware fixed-point emulation of Grover’s algorithm: asymptotic error bounds and design guidelines.Quantum Information Processing, 25(214), 2026

    Seonghyun Choi, Kyeongwon Lee, Jongin Choi, Chaebin Jung, and Woojoo Lee. Precision-aware fixed-point emulation of Grover’s algorithm: asymptotic error bounds and design guidelines.Quantum Information Processing, 25(214), 2026

    2026

  3. [11]

    Bayraktar, A

    H. Bayraktar, A. Charara, D. Clark, et al. cuQuantum SDK: A High-Performance Library for Accelerating Quantum Science.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01999, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    K. Wei, H. Amano, R. Niwase, Y. Yamaguchi, and T. Miyoshi. Qu-Trefoil: Large- Scale Quantum Circuit Simulator Working on FPGA With SATA Storages.IEEE Transactions on Computers, 74(4):1306–1321, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Liang, Y

    S. Liang, Y. Lu, C. Guo, P. H. J. Kelly, W. Luk, and H. Fan. Advancing Full-Stack Acceleration for Schrödinger-Style Quantum Simulation. InProc. IEEE Int. Symp. High-Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA), 2026

    2026

  6. [14]

    Quantum Supremacy Using a Programmable Superconducting Processor.Nature, 574:505–510, 2019

    Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, et al. Quantum Supremacy Using a Programmable Superconducting Processor.Nature, 574:505–510, 2019. See Supplementary Information for the hybrid Schrödinger–Feynman algorithm (SFA) description

    2019

  7. [15]

    Markov, Aneeqa Fatima, Sergei V

    Igor L. Markov, Aneeqa Fatima, Sergei V. Isakov, et al. Massively Parallel Ap- proximate Simulation of Hard Quantum Circuits. InProc. 57th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conf. (DAC), 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Graph Partitioning Approach for Fast Quan- tum Circuit Simulation

    Jaekyung Im and Seokhyeong Kang. Graph Partitioning Approach for Fast Quan- tum Circuit Simulation. InProc. 28th Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conf. (ASP-DAC), pages 690–695, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Herzog, Lukas Burgholzer, Christian Ufrecht, Daniel D

    Laura S. Herzog, Lukas Burgholzer, Christian Ufrecht, Daniel D. Scherer, and Robert Wille. Joint Cutting for Hybrid Schrödinger-Feynman Simulation of Quantum Circuits. InProc. 62nd ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conf. (DAC), 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Westrick, P

    S. Westrick, P. Liu, B. Kang, C. McDonald, M. Rainey, M. Xu, J. Arora, Y. Ding, and U. A. Acar. GraFeyn: Efficient Parallel Sparse Simulation of Quantum Circuits. InProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), pages 1132– 1142, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Tackling the qubit mapping problem for nisq-era quantum devices

    Gushu Li, Yufei Ding, and Yuan Xie. Tackling the qubit mapping problem for nisq-era quantum devices. InProceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, ASPLOS ’19, page 1001–1014. Association fo...

    2019

  12. [20]

    CutQC: Using Small Quantum Computers for Large Quantum Circuit Evaluations

    Wei Tang, Teague Tomesh, Martin Suchara, Jeffrey Larson, and Margaret Martonosi. CutQC: Using Small Quantum Computers for Large Quantum Circuit Evaluations. InProc. 26th ACM Int. Conf. Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), pages 473–486, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    A Hardware-Aware Gate Cutting Framework for Practical Quantum Circuit Knitting

    Xiangyu Ren, Mengyu Zhang, and Antonio Barbalace. A Hardware-Aware Gate Cutting Framework for Practical Quantum Circuit Knitting. InProc. IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD), 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Simulation of Quantum Computers: Review and Acceleration Opportunities.ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 7(1), 2025

    Alessio Cicero, Mohammad Ali Maleki, Muhammad Waqar Azhar, Anton Frisk Kockum, and Pedro Trancoso. Simulation of Quantum Computers: Review and Acceleration Opportunities.ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 7(1), 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    Complexity-theoretic foundations of quantum supremacy experiments

    Scott Aaronson and Lijie Chen. Complexity-theoretic foundations of quantum supremacy experiments. InProceedings of the 32nd Computational Complexity Conference, pages 1–67, 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    Nielsen, Christopher M

    Michael A. Nielsen, Christopher M. Dawson, Jennifer L. Dodd, Alexei Gilchrist, Duncan Mortimer, Tobias J. Osborne, Michael J. Bremner, Aram W. Harrow, and Andrew Hines. Quantum dynamics as a physical resource.Phys. Rev. A, 67:052301, 2003

    2003

  17. [25]

    Hybrid Schrödinger- Feynman Simulation of Quantum Circuits with Decision Diagrams

    Lukas Burgholzer, Hartwig Bauer, and Robert Wille. Hybrid Schrödinger- Feynman Simulation of Quantum Circuits with Decision Diagrams. InProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), pages 199–206, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Quantum AI team and collaborators. qsim. https://github.com/quantumlib/qsim. Accessed 17 April 2026

    2026

  19. [27]

    Cambridge university press, 2010

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

    2010

  20. [28]

    Shende, S.S

    V.V. Shende, S.S. Bullock, and I.L. Markov. Synthesis of quantum logic circuits. InProceedings of the ASP-DAC 2005. Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference, 2005., volume 1, pages 272–275 Vol. 1, 2005

    2005

  21. [29]

    B. W. Kernighan and S. Lin. An efficient heuristic procedure for partitioning graphs.The Bell System Technical Journal, 49(2):291–307, 1970

    1970

  22. [30]

    QASMBench benchmark suite

    PNNL-QASMBench. QASMBench benchmark suite. https://github.com/uuudo wn/QASMBench. Accessed 17 April 2026

    2026

  23. [31]

    MQT Bench

    Munich Quantum Toolkit Benchmark Library. MQT Bench. https://www.cda.cit. tum.de/mqtbench. Accessed 17 April 2026

    2026

  24. [32]

    Cleve, A

    R. Cleve, A. Ekert, C. Macchiavello, and M. Mosca. Quantum algorithms revis- ited.Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 454(1969):339–354, 1998

    1969

  25. [33]

    Addition on a quantum computer.arXiv preprint quant- ph/0008033, 2000

    Thomas G Draper. Addition on a quantum computer.arXiv preprint quant- ph/0008033, 2000

    2000

  26. [34]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm.arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm.arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Johnson, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik

    Sukin Sim, Peter D. Johnson, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. Expressibility and En- tangling Capability of Parameterized Quantum Circuits for Hybrid Quantum- Classical Algorithms.Advanced Quantum Technologies, 2(12):1900070, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Yuwei Jin, Xiangyu Gao, Minghao Guo, Henry Chen, Fei Hua, Chi Zhang, and Eddy Z. Zhang. Optimizing Quantum Fourier Transformation (QFT) Kernels for Modern NISQ and FT Architectures. InSC24: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analys...

    2024

  29. [37]

    SiFIVE. Rocket. https://github.com/chipsalliance/rocket-chip. Accessed 17 April 2026

    2026

  30. [38]

    Kyuseung Han, Jae-Jin Lee, Jinho Lee, Woojoo Lee, and Massoud Pedram. TEI- NoC: Optimizing Ultralow Power NoCs Exploiting the Temperature Effect In- version.IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 37(2):458–471, 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    Developing TEI-aware ultralow-power SoC platforms for IoT end nodes.IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 8(6):4642–4656, 2021

    Kyuseung Han, Sukho Lee, Kwang-Il Oh, Younghwan Bae, Hyeonguk Jang, Jae-Jin Lee, Woojoo Lee, and Massoud Pedram. Developing TEI-aware ultralow-power SoC platforms for IoT end nodes.IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 8(6):4642–4656, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Jina Park, Kyuseung Han, Eunjin Choi, Jae-Jin Lee, Kyeongwon Lee, Woojoo Lee, and Massoud Pedram. Designing low-power RISC-V multicore processors with a shared lightweight floating point unit for IoT endnodes.IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers, 71(9):4...

    2024

  33. [41]

    Kyeongwon Lee, Sangmin Jeon, Kangju Lee, Woojoo Lee, and Massoud Pedram. Radar-PIM: Developing IoT processors utilizing Processing-in-Memory architec- ture for ultrawideband-radar-based respiration detection.IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 12(1):515–530, 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    HH-PIM: Dynamic Optimization of Power and Performance with Heterogeneous-Hybrid PIM for Edge AI Devices

    Sangmin Jeon, Kangju Lee, Kyeongwon Lee, and Woojoo Lee. HH-PIM: Dynamic Optimization of Power and Performance with Heterogeneous-Hybrid PIM for Edge AI Devices. In2025 62nd ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), pages 1–7, 2025

    2025

  35. [43]

    FiCABU: A Fisher-Based, Context-Adaptive Machine Unlearning Processor for Edge AI

    Eun-Su Cho, Jongin Choi, Jeongmin Jin, Jae-Jin Lee, and Woojoo Lee. FiCABU: A Fisher-Based, Context-Adaptive Machine Unlearning Processor for Edge AI. In2026 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference (DATE), pages 1–7, 2026

    2026

  36. [44]

    TT-Edge: A Hardware–Software Co-Design for Energy-Efficient Tensor- Train Decomposition on Edge AI

    Hyunseok Kwak, Kyeongwon Lee, Kyeongpil Min, Chaebin Jung, and Woojoo Lee. TT-Edge: A Hardware–Software Co-Design for Energy-Efficient Tensor- Train Decomposition on Edge AI. In2026 Design, Automation & Test in Europe HSF-S: Speed-Optimized Compilation and Acceleration for Hyb...

    2026

  37. [45]

    AMD. VCU118. https://www.amd.com/en/products/adaptive-socs-and- fpgas/evaluation-boards/vcu118.html. Accessed 17 April 2026

    2026

  38. [46]

    DesignCompiler

    Synopsys. DesignCompiler. https://www.synopsys.com/implementation-and- signoff/rtl-synthesis-test/dc-ultra.html. Accessed 17 April 2026

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed July 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.