Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Optimization Framework for Reducing Mid-circuit Measurements and Resets

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that mid-circuit measurements and resets can be replaced at compile time by probabilistic or static subcircuits whenever the measured or reset state is fully known.

desk verdict The measurement-reduction half is a solid, implemented extension of the authors' prior PCM work, but the reset-removal theorem is built on a postselection model of reset that is wrong for entangled states, so the reset claims—including the BV demo—don't hold as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16579 v1 pith:G5KFA5ES submitted 2025-04-23 quant-ph cs.PLcs.SE

Yanbin Chen , Innocenzo Fulginiti , Christian B. Mendl This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.PLcs.SE
keywords dynamiccircuitsmid-circuitmeasurementsqubitresetprobabilisticcircuitmodelquantumconstantpropagationoptimizationstatepreparationBernstein-Vaziranialgorithm
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

This paper claims that mid-circuit measurements and resets in dynamic quantum circuits can be moved out of the running circuit whenever the state entering the operation is fully known at compile time. It extends the probabilistic circuit model so that a measurement on a known multi-qubit state becomes a probabilistic subcircuit, and a reset becomes a static state-transformation circuit. The payoff is lower runtime overhead: in a Bernstein-Vazirani circuit using qubit reuse, every reset is removed, and across randomly generated dynamic circuits the framework removes over 17% of measurements and resets, compared with under 2% for the reference compiler passes. The parameter $n_{\mathrm{pcm}}$ lets users trade optimization strength against synthesis time and added gates.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the extended probabilistic gate $GP[(U_1,p_1),\dots,(U_k,p_k)]$, which compiles to one of $k$ static circuits according to a compile-time-sampled distribution. Around it the framework combines three components: quantum constant propagation (QCP), enhanced with entanglement-group splitting and reset-propagation rules; the state-transformation circuit $T_{|\psi\rangle\to|\varphi\rangle}=SP_{|\varphi\rangle}(SP_{|\psi\rangle})^{-1}$, built from ancilla-free state preparation; and the parameter $n_{\mathrm{pcm}}$, which decides whether a fully known state is small enough to synthesize. Theorem 1 uses this machinery to replace known-state measurements with probabilistic $X$-rotations, and Theorem 2 uses it to replace resets with a static transformation. The runtime-equivalence relation from the original probabilistic circuit model carries the correctness argument.

What would settle it

Prepare two qubits in the Bell state $(|00\rangle+|11\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, reset the first qubit, and measure the expectation $\langle Z\rangle$ on the second qubit. The paper's projection semantics predicts $\langle Z\rangle=1$, while a physical reset yields $\langle Z\rangle=0$ because the second qubit becomes maximally mixed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that dynamic-circuit overhead can be converted into static compile-time work. For any mid-circuit measurement whose input $n$-qubit state is fully known and whose support size is at most $n_{\mathrm{pcm}}$, Theorem 1 shows the measurement can be replaced by a probabilistic subcircuit: synthesize a circuit mapping the known state to $|0\rangle^{\otimes n}$, then apply $X_s$ with probability $|\alpha_s|^2$ and record the sampled string on the original classical wire. For any reset whose input state is fully known, Theorem 2 shows the reset can be replaced by a single static circuit that maps the pre-reset state to the state obtained by setting the target qubit to $|0\rangle$. This replacement relies on a reset semantics in which the reset projects the state onto the $|0\rangle$ subspace of that qubit and renormalizes. The evaluation reports that the method removes all resets in the qubit-reuse Bernstein-Vazirani example and outperforms the reference compiler passes on random dynamic circuits.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that resetting a qubit is equivalent to projecting the whole state onto the $|0\rangle$ subspace of that qubit and renormalizing, so a single static subcircuit can reproduce the post-reset state; a physical reset of an entangled qubit leaves the other qubits mixed, which no unitary subcircuit can match.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any dynamic circuit segment whose measured state is fully known can run without real-time feedback for that measurement, since the outcome is sampled at compile time.
  • Fully known resets can be compiled away entirely, which is what lets qubit-reuse circuits like Bernstein-Vazirani lose all of their resets.
  • Raising $n_{\mathrm{pcm}}$ removes additional dynamic operations, at the cost of longer synthesis runs and larger added gate counts, with diminishing returns set by QCP's entanglement-group limit $n_{\max}$.
  • Compiling away resets first unblocks downstream structural optimizations, as the transpiled Bernstein-Vazirani circuit becomes much shorter after the framework runs.
  • The method directly targets the dominant runtime cost of dynamic circuits, which is relevant for algorithms that interleave mid-circuit measurement with classical feed-forward.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the equivalence for resets is stated under a projection semantics, a natural test is to compare the framework's prediction against physical reset on an entangled state; a Bell-state experiment would determine exactly where Theorem 2 applies.
  • Pre-sampling known measurement outcomes is structurally similar to gate cutting and circuit knitting, so the framework could be combined with those techniques to schedule dynamic algorithms on fewer physical qubits.
  • The $n_{\mathrm{pcm}}$ trade-off could be automated by predicting per-site synthesis cost and runtime savings, turning the manual knob into an optimization objective.
  • The improved QCP with entanglement-group splitting is independent of the reset question and may benefit other static analyses of dynamic circuits.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends the probabilistic circuit model (PCM) to reduce the number of mid-circuit measurements and resets in dynamic quantum circuits. The framework uses quantum constant propagation (QCP) to obtain compile-time knowledge of quantum states, then replaces a mid-circuit measurement on a known state by a probabilistic subcircuit (Theorem 1) and a mid-circuit reset by a unitary state-transformation circuit (Theorem 2). A parameter n_pcm is introduced to trade optimization strength against synthesis cost. The method is evaluated on randomly generated dynamic circuits and on a Bernstein-Vazirani circuit with qubit reuse, where the authors report removing all resets. The paper also improves QCP by separating disentangled qubits and by propagating information through resets.

Significance. If correct, the framework would give a practical compile-time method for reducing dynamic-circuit overhead, complementing existing Qiskit passes, and the public implementation would be a useful resource. However, the central reset-removal claim rests on an incorrect model of reset semantics for entangled states: Section 3.3 defines the abstract reset effect as projection onto the |0> component followed by renormalization, which is postselection, not the CPTP reset performed on hardware. Since Theorem 2 and Algorithm 1 rely on this definition, the reset reductions reported in Section 4 are unsupported for entangled inputs. The measurement-reduction part is more plausible but also needs a precise statement about post-measurement states when the measured qubit is entangled with the rest of the system.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3 and Theorem 2, Eq. (2)] The reset replacement in Theorem 2 is not state-equivalent for entangled input states. The paper's abstract semantics, [[reset_i]]^# s = (1/lambda_norm) sum_{psi_j^i=0} lambda_j |psi_j>, is projection onto the subspace where qubit i is |0>, i.e., postselection. A physical reset is the CPTP map R_i(rho) = |0><0|_i (x) Tr_i(rho). For an entangled pure input such as (|00>+|11>)/sqrt(2), the actual post-reset state of the remaining qubit is maximally mixed, while any n-qubit unitary T maps the pure input to a pure state and leaves the remaining qubit pure. Hence Eq. (2) cannot hold for entangled states, and the QCP propagation rule in Section 3.3 records the postselected pure state rather than the actual mixture. Consequently, Algorithm 1 will replace resets with unitary circuits that change the output state, and the reset-removal results in Section 4, including the Bernstein-Vazirani example in Section 4.4, are unsupported whenever the reset input is entangled.
  2. [Theorem 1 and Algorithm 1, Eq. (1)] The measurement replacement in Theorem 1 also needs a careful statement of what is being preserved. Eq. (1) replaces the measurement of an n-qubit state by T_{|psi>->|0...0>} followed by a probabilistic X_s, which produces the computational basis state |s> on all n qubits. For a mid-circuit measurement of a single qubit that is entangled with the rest, the post-measurement state of the unmeasured qubits is a conditional pure state (or a mixture before conditioning on the classical outcome), and it is not reproduced by preparing |s> on the full register. If Theorem 1 is intended only for measurements of all n qubits whose outcomes are the only relevant outputs, then Algorithm 1's application to individual mid-circuit measurements requires an additional argument. As written, the claimed extension of measurement optimization to entangled multi-qubit states is not justified.
  3. [Section 4.3] The experimental evaluation reports counts of removed measurements and resets and introduced gates, but it never verifies that the optimized circuits are semantically equivalent to the original circuits, e.g., by comparing output distributions or state fidelities. Given that the reset transformation in Theorem 2 is not state-equivalent for entangled inputs, the reported reductions may partly reflect changes in circuit semantics rather than safe optimizations. A correctness check on the optimized circuits is needed before the empirical claims can be interpreted.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 6 caption] There is a typo: 'Dimonstrative example' should be 'Demonstrative example', and the sentence 'applying the PCM-based optimization framework the circuit' is missing 'to'.
  2. [Example 6] The computation contains a typo: the text writes 'H ⊗ H ∈ C_{|00>}^{|+->}' but then evaluates '(H ⊗ XH)|+->'; the XH should be H.
  3. [Definition 4] The notation '1s0 (X0) ⊗ ... ⊗ 1sl−1 (Xl−1)' is confusing; the indicator function should be defined explicitly before use.
  4. [Section 2.3 and Theorem 1] The paper relies on 'runtime equivalence' defined in [6] but does not define it locally; since Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 both use this notion, a brief definition would make the paper more self-contained.
  5. [Section 4.3] The text says the data are obtained by evaluating 10 quantum circuits per scale, but the standard-deviation experiment uses 50 circuits; this should be stated explicitly to avoid ambiguity about which plots use which sample size.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Reset removal in Algorithm 1 reduces to the paper's own definition of reset semantics in Section 3.3; the measurement reduction is independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.3, 'Propagation through resets'; Theorem 2 (Eq. 2); Algorithm 1]
    "In the current version, suppose that s = Σ_j λ_j |ψ_j⟩, then [[reset_i]]^♯ s = 1/λ_norm (Σ_{ψ_j^i = 0} λ_j |ψ_j⟩), where ψ_j^i indicates the i-th qubit of the basis state |ψ_j⟩ and λ_norm is used to normalize the state after the reset. ... Theorem 2. Given an n-qubit state |ψ⟩ ... where |φ⟩ is the state after resetting the qubit q0 to 0, then Eq. (2) holds."

    The QCP abstract semantics of reset is defined as projection onto the subspace where the reset qubit is |0⟩, followed by renormalization. Theorem 2 then declares that a reset can be replaced by the unitary T_{|ψ⟩→|φ⟩}, where |φ⟩ is taken to be exactly that projected state. Thus the reset-replacement identity is not derived from the physical CPTP reset (which traces out the reset qubit and yields a mixed state whenever the qubit is entangled); it is true by construction relative to the paper's own definition. Algorithm 1 uses Theorem 2 to remove resets, so the reported reset reductions are consequences of the chosen reset semantics rather than independent predictions. The measurement-reduction part (Theorem 1) is separate and remains non-circular.

full rationale

The paper's measurement-reduction chain is self-contained: QCP propagates a known pure state |ψ⟩, and Theorem 1 replaces the measurement by a probabilistic circuit whose probabilities are the Born amplitudes of that state. This is a standard identity, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The reset-reduction chain is different. In Section 3.3, the paper improves QCP by defining the abstract effect of a reset as [[reset_i]]^♯ s = 1/λ_norm Σ_{ψ_j^i=0} λ_j |ψ_j⟩, i.e., a projection plus normalization. Theorem 2 immediately uses this definition by choosing |φ⟩ as 'the state after resetting the qubit q0 to 0' and claiming Eq. (2), the replacement of the reset by a unitary T_{|ψ⟩→|φ⟩}. For an entangled input, this is not the physical reset, which is a CPTP map that leaves the remaining qubits mixed. Consequently, the reset-removal claim in Algorithm 1 reduces to the chosen abstract reset semantics; it is not an independent result about the hardware reset. The BV qubit-reuse demonstration may still be salvaged for product-state resets after measurement, but the general reset-removal theorem is circular in the sense of being true by definition. Because the measurement-reduction contribution is independent, the circularity is partial rather than total, giving a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework is not built on fitted parameters; n_pcm is a user knob and n_max is inherited. The main axioms are the initial |0> assumption, availability of exponential state preparation, and the reset-as-postselection model. The last is the load-bearing error: it makes Theorem 2 a definitional tautology under a false definition of reset.

free parameters (2)
  • n_pcm
    User-set integer with n_pcm >= 1; controls the maximum state size eligible for replacement. It balances optimization strength against synthesis cost and is not fitted to data.
  • n_max
    Upper limit on entanglement-group size in QCP, inherited from prior work [8]; caps which states can be tracked and therefore limits optimization reach.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption All qubit initial states are |0>.
    Stated in Section 2.2; QCP propagates static information from this initial context.
  • domain assumption An ancilla-free state preparation procedure SP exists with depth and gate count O(2^n).
    Definition 1; Lemma 1 and Theorems 1 and 2 construct replacement circuits by composing SP and its inverse.
  • ad hoc to paper Reset semantics is normalized projection onto components where the reset qubit is |0>.
    Section 3.3. This is a postselection model, not the CPTP reset map, and is the load-bearing error that invalidates Theorem 2 for entangled states.
  • domain assumption Runtime equivalence relation from [6] is accepted.
    Theorem 1 relies on the equivalence defined in the authors' prior paper [6]; it is not restated or formally verified here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimization Framework for Reducing Mid-circuit Measurements and Resets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G5KFA5ES

@misc{pith2026250416579,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimization Framework for Reducing Mid-circuit Measurements and Resets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G5KFA5ES}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16579}
}
abstract

The paper addresses the optimization of dynamic circuits in quantum computing, with a focus on reducing the cost of mid-circuit measurements and resets. We extend the probabilistic circuit model (PCM) and implement an optimization framework that targets both mid-circuit measurements and resets. To overcome the limitation of the prior PCM-based pass, where optimizations are only possible on pure single-qubit states, we incorporate circuit synthesis to enable optimizations on multi-qubit states. With a parameter $n_{pcm}$, our framework balances optimization level against resource usage.We evaluate our framework using a large dataset of randomly generated dynamic circuits. Experimental results demonstrate that our method is highly effective in reducing mid-circuit measurements and resets. In our demonstrative example, when applying our optimization framework to the Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm after employing qubit reuse, we significantly reduce its runtime overhead by removing all of the resets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16579 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Compiling and executing an example probabilistic ci [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An example of applying the PCM-based pass on a dynamic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example of compiling and executing a probabilisti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance comparison between PCM-based optimiza [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of PCM performance under different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dimonstrative example of applying the PCM-based opt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    https://www.ibm.com/quantum/blog/quantum-dynamic-circuits, https://www.ibm.com/quantum/blog/quantum-dynamic-circuits, [Accessed 19-03-2024]

    Bringing the full power of dynamic circuits to qiskit runt ime. https://www.ibm.com/quantum/blog/quantum-dynamic-circuits, https://www.ibm.com/quantum/blog/quantum-dynamic-circuits, [Accessed 19-03-2024]

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Ibm quantum platform february 2021 product updates, https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/announcements/product-updates/2021-02-01-product-updates#february-2021-

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/api/qiskit/0.19/qiskit.circuit.random.random_circ

    random_circuit (v0.19) | IBM Quantum Documentation — docs.quantum.ibm.com. https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/api/qiskit/0.19/qiskit.circuit.random.random_circ

    work page

  4. [4]

    SIAM Journal on Com- puting 26(5), 1411–1473 (1997)

    Bernstein, E., Vazirani, U.: Quantum complexity theory. SIAM Journal on Com- puting 26(5), 1411–1473 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539796300921, https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539796300921

    doi:10.1137/s0097539796300921 1997

  5. [5]

    In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Qu antum Comput- ing and Engineering (QCE)

    Brandhofer, S., Polian, I., Krsulich, K.: Optimal Qubit R euse for Near-Term Quan- tum Computers . In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Qu antum Comput- ing and Engineering (QCE). pp. 859–869. IEEE Computer Socie ty, Los Alami- tos, CA, USA (Sep 2023). https://doi.org/10.1109/QCE57702.2023.00100, https://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/QCE57702.2...

    arXiv 2023

  6. [7]

    In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Enginee ring (QCE)

    Chen, Y., Fulginiti, I., Mendl, C.B.: Probabilistic circ uit model. In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Enginee ring (QCE). vol. 02, pp. 508–509 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/QCE60285.2024.10379

    arXiv 2024

  7. [8]

    In: Hermenegildo, M.V., Morales, J.F

    Chen, Y., Stade, Y.: Quantum constant propagation. In: Hermenegildo, M.V., Morales, J.F. (eds.) Static Analy- sis. pp. 164–189. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham (2023) , https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-44245-2_9

    doi:10.1007/978-3-031-44245-2_9 2023

  8. [9]

    Nature 432(7017), 602–605 (2004) Optimization Framework for Reducing Mid-circuit Measurem ents and Resets 15

    Chiaverini, J., Leibfried, D., Schaetz, T., Barrett, M.D ., Blakestad, R., Britton, J., Itano, W.M., Jost, J.D., Knill, E., Langer, C., et al.: Reali zation of quantum error correction. Nature 432(7017), 602–605 (2004) Optimization Framework for Reducing Mid-circuit Measurem ents and Resets 15

    work page 2004

Show all 32 references
  1. [11]

    Physical Revie w Letters 127(10) (Aug 2021)

    Córcoles, A., Takita, M., Inoue, K., Lekuch, S., Minev, Z .K., Chow, J.M., Gambetta, J.M.: Exploiting dynamic quantum circuits in a quan- tum algorithm with superconducting qubits. Physical Revie w Letters 127(10) (Aug 2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.127.100501, htt...

    2021 doi

  2. [12]

    Physical Review Applie d 23(1) (Jan 2025)

    Ding, J., Li, Y., Wang, H., Xue, G., Su, T., Wang, C., Sun, W ., Li, F., Zhang, Y., Gao, Y., Peng, J., Jiang, Z.H., Yu, Y., Yu, H., Yan, F.: Multipurpose architecture for fast reset and pr otective readout of superconducting qubits. Physical Review Applie d 23(1) (Jan 2025). h...

    2025 doi

  3. [13]

    PRX Quantum 3(4), 040305 (2022)

    Dong, Y., Lin, L., Tong, Y.: Ground-state preparation an d energy estimation on early fault-tolerant quantum computers via quantum eigenv alue transformation of unitary matrices. PRX Quantum 3(4), 040305 (2022)

    2022

  4. [14]

    Ella, L., Leandro, L., Wertheim, O., Romach, Y., Schlipf , L., Szmuk, R., Knol, Y., Ofek, N., Sivan, I., Cohen, Y.: Quantum-classical processi ng and benchmarking at the pulse-level (2023), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.03816

    2023 doi arXiv

  5. [15]

    Physical Review A 104(6), 062440 (2021)

    Gaebler, J., Baldwin, C., Moses, S., Dreiling, J., Figga tt, C., Foss-Feig, M., Hayes, D., Pino, J.: Suppression of midcircuit measurement crosst alk errors with micro- motion. Physical Review A 104(6), 062440 (2021)

    2021

  6. [16]

    Gehér, G.P., Jastrzebski, M., Campbell, E.T., Crawford , O.: To reset, or not to reset – that is the question (2024), https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.00758

    2024 arXiv

  7. [17]

    Physical Review X 13(4) (Dec 2023)

    Graham, T., Phuttitarn, L., Chinnarasu, R., Song, Y., Po ole, C., Jooya, K., Scott, J., Scott, A., Eichler, P., Saffman, M.: Midcircui t measure- ments on a single-species neutral alkali atom quantum proce ssor. Physical Review X 13(4) (Dec 2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/physre...

    2023 doi

  8. [18]

    Hashim, A., Carignan-Dugas, A., Chen, L., Juenger, C., F ruitwala, N., Xu, Y., Huang, G., Wallman, J.J., Siddiqi, I.: Quasi-probabilisti c readout correction of mid-circuit measurements for adaptive feedback via measur ement randomized com- piling (2024), https://arxiv.org/abs...

    2024 arXiv

  9. [19]

    Heinsoo, J., Andersen, C.K., Remm, A., Krinner, S., Walt er, T., Salathé, Y., Gasparinetti, S., Besse, J.C., Potočnik, A., Wallraff, A., E ichler, C.: Rapid high-fidelity multiplexed readout of superconducting qubi ts. Phys. Rev. Appl. 10, 034040 (Sep 2018). https://doi.org/10.1...

    2018 doi

  10. [20]

    Nature Reviews Physics 5(8), 450–465 (2023)

    Herman, D., Googin, C., Liu, X., Sun, Y., Galda, A., Safro , I., Pistoia, M., Alexeev, Y.: Quantum computing for finance. Nature Reviews Physics 5(8), 450–465 (2023)

    2023

  11. [21]

    OUP Oxford (2006)

    Kaye, P., Laflamme, R., Mosca, M.: An introduction to quan tum computing. OUP Oxford (2006)

    2006

  12. [22]

    Quantum 3, 134 (2019)

    Kissinger, A., van de Wetering, J.: Universal mbqc with g eneralised parity-phase interactions and pauli measurements. Quantum 3, 134 (2019)

    2019

  13. [23]

    Levine, I.N., Busch, D.H., Shull, H.: Quantum chemistry , vol. 6. Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ (2009) 16 Y. Chen, I. Fulginiti, et al

    2009

  14. [24]

    Lubinski, T., Granade, C., Anderson, A., Geller, A., Roe tteler, M., Petrenko, A., Heim, B.: Advancing hybrid quantum-classical computation with real-time execu- tion (2022), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.12950

    2022 doi arXiv

  15. [25]

    Lubinski, T., Granade, C., Anderson, A., Geller, A., Roe tteler, M., Petrenko, A., Heim, B.: Advancing hybrid quantum-classical computation with real-time execu- tion (2022), https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.12950

    2022 arXiv

  16. [26]

    Nation, P.: How to measure and reset a qubit in the middle o f a circuit execution, https://www.ibm.com/quantum/blog/quantum-mid-circuit-measurement

  17. [27]

    Cambridge University Pres s, 1 edn

    Nielsen, M.A., Chuang, I.L.: Quantum Computation and Qu antum Informa- tion: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Pres s, 1 edn. (Jun 2012). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511976667

    2012 doi

  18. [28]

    ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 32(3), 300–335 (2000)

    Rieffel, E., Polak, W.: An introduction to quantum comput ing for non-physicists. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 32(3), 300–335 (2000)

    2000

  19. [29]

    Rosenthal, G.: Query and depth upper bounds for quantum u nitaries via grover search (2023), https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.07992

    2023 arXiv

  20. [30]

    Sun, X., Tian, G., Yang, S., Yuan, P., Zhang, S.: Asymptot ically optimal cir- cuit depth for quantum state preparation and general unitar y synthesis (2023), https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.06150

    2023 arXiv

  21. [31]

    Vazquez, A.C., Tornow, C., Riste, D., Woerner, S., Takit a, M., Eg- ger, D.J.: Scaling quantum computing with dynamic circuits (2024), https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.17833

    2024 arXiv

  22. [32]

    Physical Review Letters 129(23), 230504 (2022)

    Zhang, X.M., Li, T., Yuan, X.: Quantum state preparation with optimal circuit depth: Implementations and applications. Physical Review Letters 129(23), 230504 (2022)

    2022

  23. [33]

    Nature Commu- nications 12(1) (Oct 2021)

    Zhou, Y., Zhang, Z., Yin, Z., Huai, S., Gu, X., Xu, X., Allc ock, J., Liu, F., Xi, G., Yu, Q., Zhang, H., Zhang, M., Li, H., Song, X., Wang , Z., Zheng, D., An, S., Zheng, Y., Zhang, S.: Rapid and unconditio nal para- metric reset protocol for tunable superconducting qubits. N...

    2021 doi

  24. [34]

    Physical Review A 109(4), 042401 (2024)

    Zylberman, J., Debbasch, F.: Efficient quantum state prep aration with walsh series. Physical Review A 109(4), 042401 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.