Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 148 references

AutoQuREO: A Framework for Automated Quantum Resource Estimation and Optimization

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that full-stack quantum resource estimation can be automated by learning interpretable surrogate cost models per stack layer and composing them into estimates for problem sizes that cannot be compiled.

desk verdict A serious systems contribution to QRE tooling, with headline savings that are model-based estimates rather than validated claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12936 v1 pith:NLWQYEDV submitted 2026-08-13 quant-ph cs.AIcs.ET

Harshkumar Oza , Aritra Sarkar , Syed Naqi Abbas , Rahul Bhowmick , Aryan Prakash , Prateek P Kulkarni , Krishna Kumar Sabapathy This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.AIcs.ET PACS 03.67.Lx
keywords quantumresourceestimationsurrogatemodelingneuro-symboliclearningsymbolicregressionco-designdesignspaceexplorationerrorcorrectioniterativephase
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

AutoQuREO is a framework for estimating and optimizing the resources a quantum computation consumes across the whole stack — algorithm, gate decomposition, error correction, routing, hardware — without compiling every candidate configuration. The paper's claim is that each layer's resource cost can be learned from small-instance compilations as an interpretable surrogate model, then composed across layers and extrapolated to problem sizes that direct compilation cannot reach. Existing quantum resource estimation tools are either compilation-based (accurate but computationally prohibitive for large design spaces) or symbolic-annotation-based (scalable but demanding deep cross-domain expertise and hard to adapt as assumptions evolve). AutoQuREO automates the middle path: an agent arbitrates between compilation and model adapters, lifelong learning improves the models as data accumulates, and multi-objective optimization selects the best trade-off configurations for deployment. If the surrogate-composition claim holds, full-stack co-design becomes tractable across NISQ, early-fault-tolerant, and fault-tolerant regimes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the surrogate synthesis pipeline. For each stack layer, code that can be compiled is run at small hyperparameter configurations to generate labeled resource data; a neuro-evolved neural network fits the data as a flexible approximator; and symbolic regression distills the network into a closed-form equation (for example, gate counts as functions of eigenvalue precision, or $\epsilon_{\mathrm{opt}} \approx 2.28\sqrt{p} + 162.43\,p$). Each learned model is packaged as an adapter with cost and confidence metadata, and an agent arbitrates between compilation-based ground truth and model-based estimates during exploration; accumulated compilation data feed lifelong learning that retrains the models. These layer models chain together into a resource tree that records cumulative configurations and resources at each layer and feeds the multi-objective Pareto optimization that selects the configuration to compile and deploy.

What would settle it

Compile the full Hydrazine iQPE stack (28 qubits, eigenvalue precision 14, 5 Trotter steps) once with fixed GridSynth accuracy $10^{-10}$ and once with the noise-matched $\epsilon_{\mathrm{opt}}$, and compare the gate-count gap to the surrogate-predicted roughly 83.5 percent; a large deviation would show the composed surrogates fail on extrapolation. Separately, measure the logical T-gate error rate in the Steane code with Reed-Muller T-teleportation: if $\epsilon_T$ is not close to $2\epsilon_S$, the absolute resource numbers in the QEC tables shift.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that quantum resource estimation can be reframed as algorithmic profiling: compile small instances, learn layer-wise cost functions, and compose them into a full-stack estimate. Its central quantitative demonstration co-designs the GridSynth decomposition accuracy with hardware noise in an iterative quantum phase estimation (iQPE) stack for ground-state energy estimation of the Hydrazine molecule (28 qubits). Instead of fixing the synthesis accuracy at $10^{-10}$, AutoQuREO matches it to the logical noise level $p$ via the learned relation $\epsilon_{\mathrm{opt}} \approx 2.28\sqrt{p} + 162.43\,p$ (symbolic regression) or $\epsilon_{\mathrm{opt}} \approx 2.85\sqrt{p}$ (analytical derivation), and the paper reports that this cuts total gate count by roughly 83.5 percent across problem sizes and surface-code runtime by roughly 85.7 percent. The paper further claims that a neuro-symbolic surrogate — a neuro-evolved network distilled into a closed-form expression — matches the network's accuracy at far lower inference cost, that the layer-wise surrogates extrapolate to eigenvalue precisions beyond the compiled training range, and that symbolic characterization of Steane-code gates under square topology exposes a threshold window in which error correction is beneficial.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on two premises: the surrogate models trained on small compilations stay accurate when chained across layers and extrapolated far beyond their training range, and the logical T-gate error rate is twice the S-gate rate ($\epsilon_T = 2\epsilon_S$).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If extrapolation holds, full-stack resource estimation no longer requires domain-expert symbolic cost models or compiling every configuration in the design space.
  • Noise-matched decomposition accuracy becomes a reusable layer rule: roughly constant relative savings (about 83.5 percent in gate count and 85.7 percent in surface-code runtime) across problem sizes, with larger absolute savings at higher precision.
  • The same algorithm and decomposition layers can be re-targeted to different error-correction schemes by swapping adapters, so one stack estimate covers Steane, surface-code, and partial-fault-tolerance regimes.
  • Distilled symbolic surrogates keep estimates interpretable at roughly neural-network accuracy, so the trade-off insights remain amenable to hand analysis.
  • Because estimation, optimization, and deployment share one interface, the configuration found optimal by the models is precisely the one compiled and executed, closing the design loop.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The $\epsilon_{\mathrm{opt}} \propto \sqrt{p}$ scaling likely generalizes to any single-qubit synthesis algorithm whose depth grows like $\log(1/\epsilon)$; if so, every resource estimator that hardcodes a fixed fine accuracy is systematically over-provisioning T gates at every nonzero noise level.
  • The lifelong-learning loop turns every compilation performed during design-space exploration into training data, so the framework's estimates improve with use — effectively making resource estimation a continuous data-collection process rather than a one-time analysis.
  • The square-topology threshold window found for the Steane code is a concrete, testable target: connectivity-constrained early-fault-tolerant hardware would need physical gate error rates below roughly $2.3\times 10^{-3}$ for this encoding to pay off.
  • A stress test the paper does not run: compile a mid-size full stack (eigenvalue precision around 14 to 20) and compare against the composed surrogates; if errors accumulate layer by layer, confidence propagation across layers would need to become part of the framework's bookkeeping.
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 proposes AutoQuREO, a framework for full-stack quantum resource estimation and optimization built on user-defined stack layers, adapter-based module/model interfaces, surrogate synthesis (lookup tables, neural networks, symbolic regression, neuro-symbolic distillation), lifelong learning, and Pareto-based multi-objective optimization. Three case studies are presented: Trotterized transverse-field Ising simulation with zero-noise extrapolation; an early-fault-tolerant iterative quantum phase estimation (iQPE) stack for the Hydrazine molecule combining Steane or surface codes, GridSynth decomposition, and noise-matched synthesis accuracy; and QAOA for MaxCut under routing and error-mitigation constraints. The central quantitative claims are an approximately 83.5% gate-count reduction and an approximately 85.7% surface-code runtime reduction from using a noise-matched GridSynth accuracy instead of a fixed accuracy of 1e-10, together with absolute resource estimates for Steane-code and surface-code implementations.

Significance. If the central claims hold, AutoQuREO would be a useful contribution: it offers a modular, flexible alternative to compilation-heavy or symbolic-annotation-heavy QRE tools, and it demonstrates a genuine held-out extrapolation test for neuro-symbolic resource surrogates. The paper also deserves credit for producing interpretable closed-form models (e.g., Eq. 14, epsilon_opt ≈ 2.85*sqrt(p)), for grounding resource models in explicit simulations, and for disclosing many modeling assumptions in the text. However, the headline quantitative payoff is not yet supported end-to-end: the resource savings and absolute counts are produced by composing surrogates that are only partially validated, and several numerical choices in the QEC integration are not reconciled with the savings figures. The framework's architecture is defensible, but the specific quantitative claims need additional validation or appropriate uncertainty qualification.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2.3, Figs. 18–20, Boxes 5–6] The headline savings and absolute resource counts are produced by composing layer-wise surrogates without any end-to-end validation. The only extrapolation check, Figure 18b, reports mean log10-RMSE ≈ 0.150 (about 40% multiplicative error), and this uncertainty is not propagated into Figures 19–20 or Boxes 5–6. Because those figures and boxes are generated by the same surrogate composition, the claimed 83.5% and 85.7% savings and the absolute resource counts at the 10^12-gate scale are unsupported. The per-resource RMSE in Figure 18b also does not bound the error in composed totals, since errors can compound across the iQPE, Trotter, GridSynth, and QEC layers. Please provide either a full-stack compilation check at a smaller but representative scale, or report uncertainty intervals and show that the savings are robust to the observed surrogate error.
  2. [§4.2.2 (Eq. 13) vs. Table 4] There is an unexplained numerical inconsistency between the noise-matched GridSynth accuracy used in the savings figures and the values listed in Table 4. At p = 1e-4, Eq. (13) gives eps_opt ≈ 0.039, while Table 4 lists GridSynth accuracy of 2.5e-4 for the Steane code and 7.2e-7 for the surface code. The surface-code value is consistent with Eq. (13) only if the relevant noise is the logical error rate p_L ≈ 1e-13 (from the surface-code model with p = 1e-4 and distance 11), and the Steane value implies p_L ≈ 1.2e-8. The text does not state which noise level is used to compute the savings percentages in Figures 19–20 as opposed to the absolute estimates in Boxes 5–6. Please clarify this mapping and reconcile the two sets of numbers.
  3. [§4.2.1, §4.2.2, Boxes 4–6] The assumption epsilon_T = 2*epsilon_S, imported from reference [86] in Section 4.2.1 and clipped at 1.0, is load-bearing for the encoded fidelity results (Figure 16) and for the absolute resource counts in Boxes 4–6. Since T gates are a substantial fraction of the decomposed rotations (Eq. 18 gives n_T ≈ 30 log10(1/eps), comparable to n_H), this factor directly affects the inferred logical error rates and hence the optimal decomposition accuracy. No sensitivity analysis or validation is provided for this factor in the Steane/Reed-Muller setting. Please add a sensitivity scan over the factor (e.g., 1x to 10x) or otherwise justify it.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2.2, Eqs. (15)–(17)] The 'analytical derivation' of epsilon_opt ≈ 2.85*sqrt(p) is derived from the empirically fitted fidelity model F_est, so the agreement between the PySR and analytical curves in Figure 15b is expected and does not constitute an independent first-principles prediction. The text should be careful to present this as consistency of two models built on the same empirical ansatz.
  2. [§4.2.3, Box 1 and extrapolation text] Box 1 states that the symbolic iQPE equations are inferred from compilation data for ep in [1,6] and qu in [1,7], whereas the later extrapolation experiment in the same section trains on ep in [2,12]. Please clarify whether these are two different datasets or a single dataset with different ranges.
  3. [Fig. 14a and its caption] The text and caption are inconsistent about which curve corresponds to all-to-all versus square topology, and about whether the red, blue, or green curve is the PER model. Please fix the color/curve labeling.
  4. [Box 1] Several inferred equations contain obvious non-simplified or numerically noisy terms (e.g., '1.9999988**ep - ep/ep', '-0.500011*ep - 0.0002529222*ep*(-0.20524421) + ep/((2.0000248/ep))'). These should be cleaned up or reported with explicit error bars, since the paper itself notes the bloat but still presents the expressions as resource models.
  5. [Code availability] Figure 18's caption refers to 'modeling configurations available in the repository', but no repository URL or code availability statement appears in the manuscript. Please add one, since the reproducibility of the surrogate pipeline is central to the paper's contribution.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analytical and PySR optimal-accuracy curves are transparent model-generation routes from the same empirical data, and the full-stack savings are model compositions plus extrapolation, not disguised fits or self-citation chains.

full rationale

AutoQuREO's derivation chain is model-based but not circular. The analytical epsilon_opt ~ 2.85*sqrt(p) is obtained by maximizing the explicitly empirical fidelity model F_est (Eq. 15), whose success-probability factor K is built from the PySR-fitted depth/gate-count relations (D ~ 75 and Eq. 18). The paper presents the PySR and analytical expressions as two methods for model generation, and the agreement between them is a self-consistency check rather than an independent confirmation; the paper does not misrepresent the analytical curve as external evidence. The full-stack gate-count and runtime savings (Figs. 19-20, Boxes 5-6) are compositions of layer-wise surrogates with exact symbolic expansions, and while they are extrapolated beyond directly compiled sizes, that is a validation gap and correctness risk rather than circularity: the outputs are not equivalent to the inputs by definition. The held-out extrapolation test in Fig. 18b against compilation ground truth provides independent evidence for the iQPE surrogate. Self-citations (e.g., Ref. [5] for layered stack abstractions) are background and are not load-bearing in any derivation. No step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The quantitative claims rest on a stack of fitted and imported models: every full-stack number in Boxes 5 and 6 inherits PySR-fitted constants (75, 30/15/30, 2.28/162.43), an empirical fidelity ansatz, the T-gate factor 2, and the surface-code pL formula. The independent evidence consists of the held-out iQPE extrapolation test in Figure 18b and the direct noisy simulations behind Figure 15.

free parameters (8)
  • depth_coefficient_75 = D approximately 75 log10(1/epsilon)
    PySR fit to GridSynth depth data in Section 4.2.2; enters the analytical epsilon_opt derivation through A = -75*ln(1-p)/ln(10).
  • gate_count_ratios = n_H about 30, n_S about 15, n_T about 30 per log10(1/epsilon), Eq. 18
    PySR fits used to build the success probability K in the fidelity model and to derive epsilon_opt.
  • eps_opt_pysr_coefficients = 2.28 and 162.43 in Eq. 13
    PySR fit to the simulated optimal epsilon versus p; reused directly in Box 3 for full-stack gate counts.
  • fidelity_model_form = F_est = 1/2[1 + K(1 - 2*epsilon^2)]
    The paper states the model was empirically created from exact fidelity data; the 1/2 factor and the 2 in 2*epsilon^2 are fitted, not derived.
  • swap_gate_error_rate = 1e-4
    Hand-chosen fixed SWAP error rate in the Steane square-topology characterization (Section 4.2.1); the threshold window depends on this choice.
  • T_to_S_LER_multiplier = 2.0 with clipping at 1.0
    Assumed epsilon_T = 2 * epsilon_S from reference [86]; not measured in this paper, and it drives Figure 16 and Boxes 4 through 6.
  • grid_synth_accuracy_table4 = 2.5e-4 for Steane, 7.2e-7 for surface code
    Listed in Table 4 as the GridSynth accuracy for full-stack runs, but the text does not show how these follow from Eq. 13 or Eq. 14 at the relevant logical error rates.
  • surface_code_configuration = code distance 11, factories 5, L1 distance 19, L2 distance 31, cycle time 1 microsecond
    Scenario inputs taken from reference [108]; the surface-code runtime and qubit outputs in Box 6 depend directly on them.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Depolarizing noise on single- and two-qubit gates is a representative noise model for all case studies.
    Used throughout Scenarios I, II, and III; results such as the Goldilocks GridSynth accuracy and the threshold window may shift under amplitude damping or spatially correlated noise.
  • domain assumption The T gate logical error rate is twice the S gate logical error rate, clipped at 1.0.
    Imported from reference [86] in Section 4.2.1; unverified in this paper and used in Figure 16 and Boxes 4 through 6.
  • domain assumption Surface-code logical error rate follows pL = 0.1 * (p / 0.01)^((d+1)/2).
    Imported from references [108,109] in Sections 4.2.3 and 4.2.4; used for all surface-code resource estimates.
  • ad hoc to paper Fidelity of a noisy decomposed circuit factorizes as F_est = 1/2[1 + K(1 - 2*epsilon^2)] with K a product over gate success probabilities.
    Introduced in Section 4.2.2 as an empirical model; the paper states it was created from exact fidelity data rather than derived from a noise model.
  • domain assumption Small-instance compilation data are representative of large-instance behavior for the modeled resources.
    Tested for iQPE gate counts in Section 4.2.3, but assumed for the composed full-stack gate counts at up to 1e12 gates in Boxes 5 and 6 without end-to-end verification.
  • standard math Single-qubit unitary synthesis cost scales as D approximately 75*log10(1/epsilon), and the GridSynth T-count scaling from reference [94] holds in the fitted range.
    The 9*log2(1/epsilon) GridSynth T-count is from the literature, while the specific D about 75 value is a PySR fit in Section 4.2.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AutoQuREO: A Framework for Automated Quantum Resource Estimation and Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NLWQYEDV

@misc{pith2026260812936,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AutoQuREO: A Framework for Automated Quantum Resource Estimation and Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NLWQYEDV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12936}
}
read the original abstract

As quantum computing progresses from proof-of-principle demonstrations toward practical utility, a significant impediment is the need to augment algorithmic feasibility with system-level optimization across heterogeneous hardware and software stacks. Quantum resource estimation (QRE) plays a central role in this transition, yet existing approaches remain largely compilation-heavy or domain-knowledge-guided symbolic annotations, and tightly coupled to long-term fault-tolerant assumptions, limiting their topical applicability. In this work, we introduce AutoQuREO, an Automated framework for full-stack Quantum Resource Estimation and Optimization. AutoQuREO is built around four core novelties: (i) a flexible, user-defined abstraction of the quantum computing stack; (ii) a modular library of reusable stack components enabling rapid full-stack prototyping; (iii) surrogate modeling of layer-wise resources via algorithmic profiling and neuro-symbolic learning; and (iv) integrated multi-objective optimization that embeds QRE directly into deployment pipelines. Together, these design choices enable AutoQuREO to serve as a digital twin for quantum computing stacks, supporting the tractable exploration of complex design spaces. We demonstrate the capabilities of AutoQuREO through representative co-design case studies, including early-fault-tolerant quantum algorithms, small error correction codes, gate decomposition and variational training of parametric quantum circuits. These examples illustrate how AutoQuREO enables systematic discovery of unexploited resource trade-offs that are computationally intractable or abstruse using existing QRE tools. AutoQuREO is positioned as a general-purpose platform for advancing quantum technology readiness.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

148 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [86]

    Magic state cultivation: growing t states as cheap as cnot gates.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.17595, 2024

    Craig Gidney, Noah Shutty, and Cody Jones. Magic state cultivation: growing t states as cheap as cnot gates.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.17595, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Quantum complexity theory

    Ethan Bernstein and Umesh Vazirani. Quantum complexity theory. InProceedings of the twenty-fifthannual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 11–20, 1993

    1993

  3. [2]

    Early fault-tolerant quantum computing

    Amara Katabarwa, Katerina Gratsea, Athena Caesura, and Peter D Johnson. Early fault-tolerant quantum computing. PRX quantum, 5(2):020101, 2024

    2024

  4. [3]

    Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor

    Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fernando GSL Brandao, David A Buell, et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature, 574(7779):505–510, 2019

    2019

  5. [4]

    Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold.Nature, 638(8052):920–926, 2025

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators. Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold.Nature, 638(8052):920–926, 2025

    2025

  6. [5]

    Quantum computer architecture toward full-stack quantum accelerators.IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, 1:1–17, 2020

    Koen Bertels, Aritra Sarkar, Thomas Hubregtsen, M Serrao, Abid A Mouedenne, Amitabh Yadav, A Krol, Imran Ashraf, and C Garcia Almudever. Quantum computer architecture toward full-stack quantum accelerators.IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, 1:1–17, 2020

    2020

  7. [6]

    Resource-efficient quantum computing by breaking abstractions.Proceedings of the IEEE, 108(8):1353–1370, 2020

    Yunong Shi, Pranav Gokhale, Prakash Murali, Jonathan M Baker, Casey Duckering, Yongshan Ding, Natalie C Brown, Christopher Chamberland, Ali Javadi-Abhari, Andrew W Cross, et al. Resource-efficient quantum computing by breaking abstractions.Proceedings of the IEEE, 108(8):1353–1370, 2020

    2020

  8. [7]

    Superstaq: Deep optimization of quantum programs

    Colin Campbell, Frederic T Chong, Denny Dahl, Paige Frederick, Palash Goiporia, Pranav Gokhale, Benjamin Hall, Salahedeen Issa, Eric Jones, Stephanie Lee, et al. Superstaq: Deep optimization of quantum programs. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), volume 1, pages 1020–1032. IEEE, 2023

    2023

Show all 148 references
  1. [8]

    Achieving utility-scale applications through full stack co-design of fault tolerant quantum computers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.26547, 2025

    Katerina Gratsea and Matthew Otten. Achieving utility-scale applications through full stack co-design of fault tolerant quantum computers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.26547, 2025

    2025

  2. [9]

    The grand challenge of quantum applications.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.09124, 2025

    Ryan Babbush, Robbie King, Sergio Boixo, William Huggins, Tanuj Khattar, Guang Hao Low, Jarrod R Mc- Clean, Thomas O’Brien, and Nicholas C Rubin. The grand challenge of quantum applications.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.09124, 2025

    2025

  3. [10]

    Utilizing resource estimation for the development of quantum computing applications

    Nils Quetschlich, Mathias Soeken, Prakash Murali, and Robert Wille. Utilizing resource estimation for the development of quantum computing applications. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), volume 1, pages 232–238. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  4. [11]

    Assessing requirements to scale to practical quantum advantage.arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.07629, 2022

    Michael E Beverland, Prakash Murali, Matthias Troyer, Krysta M Svore, Torsten Hoefler, Vadym Kliuchnikov, Guang Hao Low, Mathias Soeken, Aarthi Sundaram, and Alexander Vaschillo. Assessing requirements to scale to practical quantum advantage.arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.07629, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Using azure quantum resource estimator for assessing performance of fault tolerant quantum computation

    Wim van Dam, Mariia Mykhailova, and Mathias Soeken. Using azure quantum resource estimator for assessing performance of fault tolerant quantum computation. InProceedings of the SC’23 Workshops of the International Conference on High Performance Computing, Network, Storage, and...

    2023

  6. [13]

    Expressing and analyzing quantum algorithms with qualtran.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04643, 2024

    Matthew P Harrigan, Tanuj Khattar, Charles Yuan, Anurudh Peduri, Noureldin Yosri, Fionn D Malone, Ryan Babbush, and Nicholas C Rubin. Expressing and analyzing quantum algorithms with qualtran.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04643, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Psiq/bartiq: Bartiq

    PsiQ. Psiq/bartiq: Bartiq. Accessed: 2026-02-23

    2026

  8. [16]

    Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations

    Ville Bergholm, Josh Izaac, Maria Schuld, Christian Gogolin, Shahnawaz Ahmed, Vishnu Ajith, M Sohaib Alam, Guillermo Alonso-Linaje, Bharath AkashNarayanan, Ali Asadi, et al. Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations. arXiv preprint arXiv:181...

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Resource estimation via efficient compilation of key quantum primitives.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.01376, 2026

    Colin Campbell, Rich Rines, Victory Omole, Tina Oberoi, Palash Goiporia, Rayat Roy, R Peyton Cline, Eric B Jones, and Teague Tomesh. Resource estimation via efficient compilation of key quantum primitives.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.01376, 2026

    2026

  10. [18]

    Analysis of surface code algorithms on quantum hardware using the qrisp framework

    Jan Krzyszkowski and Marcin Niemiec. Analysis of surface code algorithms on quantum hardware using the qrisp framework. Electronics, 14(23):4707, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    How to build a quantum supercomputer: Scaling from hundreds to millions of qubits.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.10406, 2024

    Masoud Mohseni, Artur Scherer, K Grace Johnson, Oded Wertheim, Matthew Otten, Navid Anjum Aadit, Yuri Alexeev, Kirk M Bresniker, Kerem Y Camsari, Barbara Chapman, et al. How to build a quantum supercomputer: Scaling from hundreds to millions of qubits.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411...

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Quantum computational networks

    David Elieser Deutsch. Quantum computational networks. Proceedings of the royal society of London. A. mathematical and physical sciences, 425(1868):73–90, 1989

    1989

  13. [21]

    EQISA: Energy-efficient quantum instruction set architecture using sparse dictionary learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.20646, 2026

    Sibasish Mishra, Aritra Sarkar, and Sebastian Feld. EQISA: Energy-efficient quantum instruction set architecture using sparse dictionary learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.20646, 2026

    2026

  14. [22]

    Disentangling hype from practicality: On realistically achieving quantum advantage.Communications of the ACM, 66(5):82–87, 2023

    Torsten Hoefler, Thomas Häner, and Matthias Troyer. Disentangling hype from practicality: On realistically achieving quantum advantage.Communications of the ACM, 66(5):82–87, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    In19th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 25), pages 429–447, 2025

    Emmanouil Giortamis, Francisco Romão, Nathaniel Tornow, and Pramod Bhatotia.{QOS}: Quantum operating system. In19th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 25), pages 429–447, 2025. ⟨42⟩

    2025

  16. [24]

    Compilation of fault-tolerant quantum heuristics for combinatorial optimization.PRX quantum, 1(2):020312, 2020

    Yuval R Sanders, Dominic W Berry, Pedro CS Costa, Louis W Tessler, Nathan Wiebe, Craig Gidney, Hartmut Neven, and Ryan Babbush. Compilation of fault-tolerant quantum heuristics for combinatorial optimization.PRX quantum, 1(2):020312, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Nearly optimal quantum algorithm for generating the ground state of a free quantum field theory.PRX Quantum, 3(2):020364, 2022

    Mohsen Bagherimehrab, Yuval R Sanders, Dominic W Berry, Gavin K Brennen, and Barry C Sanders. Nearly optimal quantum algorithm for generating the ground state of a free quantum field theory.PRX Quantum, 3(2):020364, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    How to factor 2048 bit rsa integers with less than a million noisy qubits

    Craig Gidney. How to factor 2048 bit rsa integers with less than a million noisy qubits. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.15917, 2025

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Lego_hqec: Automating the analysis, construction, and decoding of holographic quantum codes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.22861, 2024

    Junyu Fan, Matthew Steinberg, Alexander Jahn, Chunjun Cao, Aritra Sarkar, and Sebastian Feld. Lego_hqec: Automating the analysis, construction, and decoding of holographic quantum codes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.22861, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Qure: The quantum resource estimator toolbox

    Martin Suchara, John Kubiatowicz, Arvin Faruque, Frederic T Chong, Ching-Yi Lai, and Gerardo Paz. Qure: The quantum resource estimator toolbox. In2013 IEEE 31st international conference on computer design (ICCD), pages 419–426. IEEE, 2013

    2013

  21. [29]

    pyliqtr (lincoln laboratory quantum algorithm test and research), 2023

    Kevin Obenland, Justin Elenewski, Arthur Kurlej, Joe Belarge, John Blue, and Robert Rood. pyliqtr (lincoln laboratory quantum algorithm test and research), 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Fault-tolerant resource estimation using graph-state compilation on a modular superconducting architecture.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06015, 2024

    SN Saadatmand, Tyler L Wilson, Mark Field, Madhav Krishnan Vijayan, Thinh P Le, Jannis Ruh, Arshpreet Singh Maan, Ioana Moflic, Athena Caesura, Alexandru Paler, et al. Fault-tolerant resource estimation using graph-state compilation on a modular superconducting architecture.ar...

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    benchq: Resource estimation for fault-tolerant quantum computation., 2023

    Zapata AI. benchq: Resource estimation for fault-tolerant quantum computation., 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Design and efficiency in graph-state computation

    Greg Bowen, Athena Caesura, Simon Devitt, and Madhav Krishnan Vijayan. Design and efficiency in graph-state computation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18985, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Practical quantum advantage on partially fault-tolerant quantum computer.Physical Review X, 15(2):021057, 2025

    Riki Toshio, Yutaro Akahoshi, Jun Fujisaki, Hirotaka Oshima, Shintaro Sato, and Keisuke Fujii. Practical quantum advantage on partially fault-tolerant quantum computer.Physical Review X, 15(2):021057, 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    Enabling chemically accurate quantum phase estimation in the early fault-tolerant regime.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.22778, 2026

    Shota Kanasugi, Riki Toshio, Kazunori Maruyama, and Hirotaka Oshima. Enabling chemically accurate quantum phase estimation in the early fault-tolerant regime.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.22778, 2026

    2026

  27. [35]

    Resource estimation for fault-tolerant quantum programs

    Bonan Su, Yuan Feng, Li Zhou, and Mingsheng Ying. Resource estimation for fault-tolerant quantum programs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2608.04573, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Scaffcc: Scalable compilation and analysis of quantum programs.Parallel Computing, 45:2–17, 2015

    Ali JavadiAbhari, Shruti Patil, Daniel Kudrow, Jeff Heckey, Alexey Lvov, Frederic T Chong, and Margaret Martonosi. Scaffcc: Scalable compilation and analysis of quantum programs.Parallel Computing, 45:2–17, 2015

    2015

  29. [37]

    Openqasm 3: A broader and deeper quantum assembly language

    Andrew Cross, Ali Javadi-Abhari, Thomas Alexander, Niel De Beaudrap, Lev S Bishop, Steven Heidel, Colm A Ryan, Prasahnt Sivarajah, John Smolin, Jay M Gambetta, et al. Openqasm 3: A broader and deeper quantum assembly language. ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 3(3):1–50, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Gprof: A call graph execution profiler.ACM Sigplan Notices, 17(6):120–126, 1982

    Susan L Graham, Peter B Kessler, and Marshall K McKusick. Gprof: A call graph execution profiler.ACM Sigplan Notices, 17(6):120–126, 1982

    1982

  31. [39]

    Qprof: A gprof-inspired quantum profiler

    Adrien Suau, Gabriel Staffelbach, and Aida Todri-Sanial. Qprof: A gprof-inspired quantum profiler. ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 4(1):1–28, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Breaking down quantum compilation: Profiling and identifying costly passes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.15141, 2025

    Felix Zilk, Alessandro Tundo, Vincenzo De Maio, and Ivona Brandic. Breaking down quantum compilation: Profiling and identifying costly passes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.15141, 2025

    2025

  33. [41]

    Robust resource bounds with static analysis and bayesian inference

    Long Pham, Feras A Saad, and Jan Hoffmann. Robust resource bounds with static analysis and bayesian inference. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages, 8(PLDI):76–101, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Integrating resource analyses via resource decomposition

    Long Pham, Yue Niu, Nathan Glover, Feras Saad, and Jan Hoffmann. Integrating resource analyses via resource decomposition. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages, 9(OOPSLA2):3811–3840, 2025

    2025

  35. [43]

    Flexible type-based resource estimation in quantum circuit description languages

    Andrea Colledan and Ugo Dal Lago. Flexible type-based resource estimation in quantum circuit description languages. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages, 9(POPL):1386–1416, 2025

    2025

  36. [44]

    Enabling accuracy-aware quantum compilers using symbolic resource estimation.Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages, 4(OOPSLA):1–26, 2020

    Giulia Meuli, Mathias Soeken, Martin Roetteler, and Thomas Häner. Enabling accuracy-aware quantum compilers using symbolic resource estimation.Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages, 4(OOPSLA):1–26, 2020

    2020

  37. [45]

    Algorithmic profiling

    Dmitrijs Zaparanuks and Matthias Hauswirth. Algorithmic profiling. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGPLAN conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, pages 67–76, 2012

    2012

  38. [46]

    Using finite experiments to study asymptotic performance

    Catherine McGeoch, Peter Sanders, Rudolf Fleischer, Paul R Cohen, and Doina Precup. Using finite experiments to study asymptotic performance. InExperimental algorithmics: from algorithm design to robust and efficientsoftware, pages 93–126. Springer, 2002

    2002

  39. [47]

    Classes of recursively enumerable sets and their decision problems.Transactionsof the American Mathematical society, 74(2):358–366, 1953

    Henry Gordon Rice. Classes of recursively enumerable sets and their decision problems.Transactionsof the American Mathematical society, 74(2):358–366, 1953

    1953

  40. [48]

    Building a quantum-ready ecosystem

    Abhishek Purohit, Maninder Kaur, Zeki Can Seskir, Matthew T Posner, and Araceli Venegas-Gomez. Building a quantum-ready ecosystem. IET Quantum Communication, 5(1):1–18, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software

    Erich Gamma. Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software. Pearson Education India, 1995

    1995

  42. [50]

    t| ket>: a retargetable compiler for nisq devices.Quantum Science & Technology, 6(1):014003, 2021

    Seyon Sivarajah, Silas Dilkes, Alexander Cowtan, Will Simmons, Alec Edgington, and Ross Duncan. t| ket>: a retargetable compiler for nisq devices.Quantum Science & Technology, 6(1):014003, 2021

    2021

  43. [51]

    Active-learning-based surrogate models for empirical performance tuning

    Prasanna Balaprakash, Robert B Gramacy, and Stefan M Wild. Active-learning-based surrogate models for empirical performance tuning. In2013 IEEE International Conference on Cluster Computing (CLUSTER), pages 1–8. IEEE, 2013. ⟨43⟩

    2013

  44. [52]

    An optimization approach to generate accurate and efficient lookup tables for engineering applications

    H Magalhães, F Marques, B Liu, João Pombo, P Flores, Jorge Ambrósio, and S Bruni. An optimization approach to generate accurate and efficient lookup tables for engineering applications. InInternational Conference on Engineering Optimization, pages 1446–1457. Springer, 2018

    2018

  45. [53]

    Interpretable machine learning for science with pysr and symbolicregression

    Miles Cranmer. Interpretable machine learning for science with pysr and symbolicregression. jl.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01582, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Evolving neural networks through augmenting topologies.Evolutionary computation, 10(2):99–127, 2002

    Kenneth O Stanley and Risto Miikkulainen. Evolving neural networks through augmenting topologies.Evolutionary computation, 10(2):99–127, 2002

    2002

  47. [55]

    Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework

    Takuya Akiba, Shotaro Sano, Toshihiko Yanase, Takeru Ohta, and Masanori Koyama. Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework. InProceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, pages 2623–2631, 2019

    2019

  48. [56]

    Child: A first step towards continual learning.Machine Learning, 28(1):77–104, 1997

    Mark B Ring. Child: A first step towards continual learning.Machine Learning, 28(1):77–104, 1997

    1997

  49. [57]

    A practical open-source software stack for a cloud-based quantum computing system.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.23165, 2025

    Norihiro Kakuko, Shun Gokita, Naoyuki Masumoto, Keita Matsumoto, Kosuke Miyaji, Takafumi Miyanaga, Toshio Mori, Haruki Nakayama, Keita Sasada, Yasuhito Takamiya, et al. A practical open-source software stack for a cloud-based quantum computing system.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507....

    2025 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Sympy: symbolic computing in python.PeerJ Computer Science, 3:e103, 2017

    Aaron Meurer, Christopher P Smith, Mateusz Paprocki, Ondřej Čertík, Sergey B Kirpichev, Matthew Rocklin, AMiT Kumar, Sergiu Ivanov, Jason K Moore, Sartaj Singh, et al. Sympy: symbolic computing in python.PeerJ Computer Science, 3:e103, 2017

    2017

  51. [59]

    Symantic: An efficient symbolic regression method for interpretable and parsimonious model discovery in science and beyond

    Madhav R Muthyala, Farshud Sorourifar, You Peng, and Joel A Paulson. Symantic: An efficient symbolic regression method for interpretable and parsimonious model discovery in science and beyond. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 64(6):3354–3369, 2025

    2025

  52. [60]

    Madhav Muthyala, Farshud Sorourifar, and Joel A Paulson. Torchsisso: a pytorch-based implementation of the sure independence screening and sparsifying operator for efficient and interpretable model discovery.Digital Chemical Engineering, 13:100198, 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    Mqt bench: Benchmarking software and design automation tools for quantum computing.Quantum, 7:1062, 2023

    Nils Quetschlich, Lukas Burgholzer, and Robert Wille. Mqt bench: Benchmarking software and design automation tools for quantum computing.Quantum, 7:1062, 2023

    2023

  54. [62]

    Pauli correlation encoding for budget-contraint optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.17479, 2026

    Jacobo Padín Martínez, Vicente P Soloviev, Alejandro Borrallo Rentero, Antón Rodríguez Otero, Raquel Alfonso Rodríguez, and Michal Krompiec. Pauli correlation encoding for budget-contraint optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.17479, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Practical and efficient quantum circuit synthesis and transpiling with reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13196, 2024

    David Kremer, Victor Villar, Hanhee Paik, Ivan Duran, Ismael Faro, and Juan Cruz-Benito. Practical and efficient quantum circuit synthesis and transpiling with reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13196, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation.Nature, 607(7920):667–676, 2022

    Andrew J Daley, Immanuel Bloch, Christian Kokail, Stuart Flannigan, Natalie Pearson, Matthias Troyer, and Peter Zoller. Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation.Nature, 607(7920):667–676, 2022

    2022

  57. [65]

    Finding exponential product formulas of higher orders

    Naomichi Hatano and Masuo Suzuki. Finding exponential product formulas of higher orders. InQuantum annealing and other optimization methods, pages 37–68. Springer, 2005

    2005

  58. [66]

    Digital zero noise extrapolation for quantum error mitigation

    Tudor Giurgica-Tiron, Yousef Hindy, Ryan LaRose, Andrea Mari, and William J Zeng. Digital zero noise extrapolation for quantum error mitigation. In2020 IEEE internationalconference on quantumcomputing and engineering (QCE), pages 306–316. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  59. [67]

    Optimal-order trotter–suzuki decomposition for quantum simulation on noisy quantum computers: Aa avtandilyan, wv pogosov.Quantum Information Processing, 24(1):8, 2024

    AA Avtandilyan and WV Pogosov. Optimal-order trotter–suzuki decomposition for quantum simulation on noisy quantum computers: Aa avtandilyan, wv pogosov.Quantum Information Processing, 24(1):8, 2024

    2024

  60. [68]

    Exponentially decaying quantum simulation error with noisy devices

    Jue Xu, Chu Zhao, Junyu Fan, and Qi Zhao. Exponentially decaying quantum simulation error with noisy devices. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10247, 2025

    2025

  61. [69]

    A comprehensive cross-model framework for benchmarking the performance of quantum hamiltonian simulations

    Avimita Chatterjee, Sonny Rappaport, Anish Giri, Sonika Johri, Timothy Proctor, David E Bernal Neira, Pratik Sathe, and Thomas Lubinski. A comprehensive cross-model framework for benchmarking the performance of quantum hamiltonian simulations. IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engi...

    2025

  62. [70]

    Software for creating scalable benchmarks from quantum algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.02134, 2025

    Noah Siekierski, Stefan Seritan, Neer Patel, Siyuan Niu, Thomas Lubinski, and Timothy Proctor. Software for creating scalable benchmarks from quantum algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.02134, 2025

    2025

  63. [71]

    Qutip: An open-source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems.Computer physics communications, 183(8):1760–1772, 2012

    J Robert Johansson, Paul D Nation, and Franco Nori. Qutip: An open-source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems.Computer physics communications, 183(8):1760–1772, 2012

    2012

  64. [72]

    Wood, Jake Lishman, Julien Gacon, Simon Martiel, Paul D

    Ali Javadi-Abhari, Matthew Treinish, Kevin Krsulich, Christopher J. Wood, Jake Lishman, Julien Gacon, Simon Martiel, Paul D. Nation, Lev S. Bishop, Andrew W. Cross, Blake R. Johnson, and Jay M. Gambetta. Quantum computing with Qiskit, 2024

    2024

  65. [73]

    On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups.Communications in mathematical physics, 48(2):119–130, 1976

    Goran Lindblad. On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups.Communications in mathematical physics, 48(2):119–130, 1976

    1976

  66. [74]

    Efficient quantum algorithm to simulate open systems through a single environmental qubit.Physical Review Research, 6(4):043321, 2024

    Giovanni Di Bartolomeo, Michele Vischi, Tommaso Feri, Angelo Bassi, and Sandro Donadi. Efficient quantum algorithm to simulate open systems through a single environmental qubit.Physical Review Research, 6(4):043321, 2024

    2024

  67. [75]

    Improved accuracy for trotter simulations using chebyshev interpolation

    Gumaro Rendon, Jacob Watkins, and Nathan Wiebe. Improved accuracy for trotter simulations using chebyshev interpolation. Quantum, 8:1266, 2024

    2024

  68. [76]

    Reducing circuit depth in lindblad simulation via step-size extrapolation

    Pegah Mohammadipour and Xiantao Li. Reducing circuit depth in lindblad simulation via step-size extrapolation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.22341, 2025

    2025

  69. [77]

    A random compiler for fast hamiltonian simulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.08017, 2018

    Earl Campbell. A random compiler for fast hamiltonian simulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.08017, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Quantum trajectories and open many-body quantum systems.Advances in Physics, 63(2):77–149, 2014

    Andrew J Daley. Quantum trajectories and open many-body quantum systems.Advances in Physics, 63(2):77–149, 2014. ⟨44⟩

    2014

  71. [79]

    Quantum error mitigation as a universal error reduction technique: Applications from the nisq to the fault-tolerant quantum computing eras.PRX quantum, 3(1):010345, 2022

    Yasunari Suzuki, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, and Yuuki Tokunaga. Quantum error mitigation as a universal error reduction technique: Applications from the nisq to the fault-tolerant quantum computing eras.PRX quantum, 3(1):010345, 2022

    2022

  72. [80]

    Zero noise extrapolation on logical qubits by scaling the error correction code distance

    Misty A Wahl, Andrea Mari, Nathan Shammah, William J Zeng, and Gokul Subramanian Ravi. Zero noise extrapolation on logical qubits by scaling the error correction code distance. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), volume 1, pages 888...

    2023

  73. [81]

    Multiple-particle interference and quantum error correction.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    Andrew Steane. Multiple-particle interference and quantum error correction.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 452(1954):2551–2577, 1996

    1954

  74. [82]

    Code switching revisited: Low-overhead magic state preparation using color codes

    Lucas Daguerre and Isaac H Kim. Code switching revisited: Low-overhead magic state preparation using color codes. Physical Review Research, 7(2):023080, 2025

    2025

  75. [83]

    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. In Proceedings of the twenty-fourthinternational conference on architectural support for programming languages and operating systems, pages 1001–1014, 2019

    2019

  76. [84]

    Lightsabre: A lightweight and enhanced sabre algorithm.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08368, 2024

    Henry Zou, Matthew Treinish, Kevin Hartman, Alexander Ivrii, and Jake Lishman. Lightsabre: A lightweight and enhanced sabre algorithm.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08368, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Experimental demonstration of high-fidelity logical magic states from code switching.Physical Review X, 15(4):041008, 2025

    Lucas Daguerre, Robin Blume-Kohout, Natalie C Brown, David Hayes, and Isaac H Kim. Experimental demonstration of high-fidelity logical magic states from code switching.Physical Review X, 15(4):041008, 2025

    2025

  78. [87]

    Protecting expressive circuits with a quantum error detection code

    Chris N Self, Marcello Benedetti, and David Amaro. Protecting expressive circuits with a quantum error detection code. Nature Physics, 20(2):219–224, 2024

    2024

  79. [88]

    Partially fault-tolerant quantum computing architecture with error-corrected clifford gates and space-time efficient analog rotations.PRX quantum, 5(1):010337, 2024

    Yutaro Akahoshi, Kazunori Maruyama, Hirotaka Oshima, Shintaro Sato, and Keisuke Fujii. Partially fault-tolerant quantum computing architecture with error-corrected clifford gates and space-time efficient analog rotations.PRX quantum, 5(1):010337, 2024

    2024

  80. [89]

    The battle of clean and dirty qubits in the era of partial error correction.Quantum, 7:1060, 2023

    Daniel Bultrini, Samson Wang, Piotr Czarnik, Max Hunter Gordon, Marco Cerezo, Patrick J Coles, and Lukasz Cincio. The battle of clean and dirty qubits in the era of partial error correction.Quantum, 7:1060, 2023

    2023

  81. [90]

    Optimized clifford noise reduction: Theory, simulations and experiments

    Edwin Tham and Nicolas Delfosse. Optimized clifford noise reduction: Theory, simulations and experiments. Quantum, 9:1829, 2025

    2025

  82. [91]

    A game of surface codes: Large-scale quantum computing with lattice surgery.Quantum, 3:128, 2019

    Daniel Litinski. A game of surface codes: Large-scale quantum computing with lattice surgery.Quantum, 3:128, 2019

    2019

  83. [92]

    Quantum low-density parity-check codes.PRX quantum, 2(4):040101, 2021

    Nikolas P Breuckmann and Jens Niklas Eberhardt. Quantum low-density parity-check codes.PRX quantum, 2(4):040101, 2021

    2021

  84. [93]

    Reducing t gates with unitary synthesis

    Tianyi Hao, Amanda Xu, and Swamit Tannu. Reducing t gates with unitary synthesis. InProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Volume 2, pages 1589–1604, 2026

    2026

  85. [94]

    Optimal ancilla-free clifford+ t approximation of z-rotations.Quantum Inf

    Neil J Ross and Peter Selinger. Optimal ancilla-free clifford+ t approximation of z-rotations.Quantum Inf. Comput., 16(11&12):901–953, 2016

    2016

  86. [95]

    An accurate and efficient analytic model of fidelity under depolarizing noise oriented to large scale quantum system design

    Pau Escofet, Santiago Rodrigo, Artur Garcia-Sáez, Eduard Alarcón, Sergi Abadal, and Carmen G Almudéver. An accurate and efficient analytic model of fidelity under depolarizing noise oriented to large scale quantum system design. Quantum Science and Technology, 10(3):035061, 2025

    2025

  87. [96]

    Magic state distillation: Not as costly as you think.Quantum, 3:205, 2019

    Daniel Litinski. Magic state distillation: Not as costly as you think.Quantum, 3:205, 2019

    2019

  88. [97]

    The solovay-kitaev algorithm.arXiv preprint quant-ph/0505030, 2005

    Christopher M Dawson and Michael A Nielsen. The solovay-kitaev algorithm.arXiv preprint quant-ph/0505030, 2005

    2005 arXiv

  89. [98]

    Optimal ancilla-free clifford+ t synthesis for general single-qubit unitaries

    Hayata Morisaki, Kaoru Sano, and Seiseki Akibue. Optimal ancilla-free clifford+ t synthesis for general single-qubit unitaries. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.05816, 2025

    2025

  90. [99]

    Synthesis of quantum logic circuits

    Vivek V Shende, Stephen S Bullock, and Igor L Markov. Synthesis of quantum logic circuits. InProceedings of the 2005 Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference, pages 272–275, 2005

    2005

  91. [100]

    Improving quantum circuit synthesis with machine learning

    Mathias Weiden, Ed Younis, Justin Kalloor, John Kubiatowicz, and Costin Iancu. Improving quantum circuit synthesis with machine learning. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), volume 1, pages 1–11. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  92. [101]

    Parameter-optimal unitary synthesis with flag decompositions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.20376, 2026

    Korbinian Kottmann, David Wierichs, Guillermo Alonso-Linaje, and Nathan Killoran. Parameter-optimal unitary synthesis with flag decompositions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.20376, 2026

    2026

  93. [102]

    A typology of quantum algorithms

    Pablo Arnault, Pablo Arrighi, Steven Herbert, Evi Kasnetsi, and Tianyi Li. A typology of quantum algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.05178, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  94. [103]

    Miroslav Dobšíček, Göran Johansson, Vitaly Shumeiko, and Göran Wendin. Arbitrary accuracy iterative quantum phase estimation algorithm using a single ancillary qubit: A two-qubit benchmark.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 76(3):030306, 2007

    2007

  95. [104]

    Statistical approach to quantum phase estimation

    Alexandria J Moore, Yuchen Wang, Zixuan Hu, Sabre Kais, and Andrew M Weiner. Statistical approach to quantum phase estimation. New Journal of Physics, 23(11):113027, 2021

    2021

  96. [105]

    Psi4: an open-source ab initio electronic structure program

    Justin M Turney, Andrew C Simmonett, Robert M Parrish, Edward G Hohenstein, Francesco A Evangelista, Justin T Fermann, Benjamin J Mintz, Lori A Burns, Jeremiah J Wilke, Micah L Abrams, et al. Psi4: an open-source ab initio electronic structure program. Wiley Interdisciplinary ...

    2012

  97. [106]

    Beyond quantum shannon decomposition: Circuit construction for n-qubit gates based on block-zxz decomposition.Physical Review Applied, 22(3):034019, 2024

    Anna M Krol and Zaid Al-Ars. Beyond quantum shannon decomposition: Circuit construction for n-qubit gates based on block-zxz decomposition.Physical Review Applied, 22(3):034019, 2024

    2024

  98. [107]

    Efficient decomposition of unitary matrices in quantum circuit compilers.Applied Sciences, 12(2):759, 2022

    Anna M Krol, Aritra Sarkar, Imran Ashraf, Zaid Al-Ars, and Koen Bertels. Efficient decomposition of unitary matrices in quantum circuit compilers.Applied Sciences, 12(2):759, 2022

    2022

  99. [108]

    Qualtran documentation, 2023

    Google. Qualtran documentation, 2023

    2023

  100. [109]

    Efficient magic state factories with a catalyzed∣CCZ⟩ to2 ∣T⟩ transformation

    Craig Gidney and Austin G Fowler. Efficient magic state factories with a catalyzed∣CCZ⟩ to2 ∣T⟩ transformation. Quantum, 3:135, 2019

    2019

  101. [110]

    Star-magic mutation: Even more efficient analog rotation gates for early fault-tolerant quantum computer.arXiv preprintarXiv:2603.22891, 2026

    Riki Toshio, Shota Kanasugi, Jun Fujisaki, Hirotaka Oshima, Shintaro Sato, and Keisuke Fujii. Star-magic mutation: Even more efficient analog rotation gates for early fault-tolerant quantum computer.arXiv preprintarXiv:2603.22891, 2026

    2026

  102. [111]

    Compilation of trotter-based time evolution for partially fault-tolerant quantum computing architecture.PRX Quantum, 6(4):040319, 2025

    Yutaro Akahoshi, Riki Toshio, Jun Fujisaki, Hirotaka Oshima, Shintaro Sato, and Keisuke Fujii. Compilation of trotter-based time evolution for partially fault-tolerant quantum computing architecture.PRX Quantum, 6(4):040319, 2025

    2025

  103. [112]

    Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quantum materials science.Chemical Reviews, 120(22):12685–12717, 2020

    Bela Bauer, Sergey Bravyi, Mario Motta, and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan. Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quantum materials science.Chemical Reviews, 120(22):12685–12717, 2020

    2020

  104. [113]

    Emerging quantum computing algorithms for quantum chemistry

    Mario Motta and Julia E Rice. Emerging quantum computing algorithms for quantum chemistry. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science, 12(3):e1580, 2022

    2022

  105. [114]

    Supervised learning with quantum-enhanced feature spaces.Nature, 567(7747):209–212, 2019

    Vojtěch Havlíček, Antonio D Córcoles, Kristan Temme, Aram W Harrow, Abhinav Kandala, Jerry M Chow, and Jay M Gambetta. Supervised learning with quantum-enhanced feature spaces.Nature, 567(7747):209–212, 2019

    2019

  106. [115]

    Quantum advantage with noisy shallow circuits

    Sergey Bravyi, David Gosset, Robert König, and Marco Tomamichel. Quantum advantage with noisy shallow circuits. Nature Physics, 16(10):1040–1045, 2020

    2020

  107. [116]

    Demonstration of quantum advantage in machine learning.npj Quantum Information, 3(1):16, 2017

    Diego Ristè, Marcus P Da Silva, Colm A Ryan, Andrew W Cross, Antonio D Córcoles, John A Smolin, Jay M Gambetta, Jerry M Chow, and Blake R Johnson. Demonstration of quantum advantage in machine learning.npj Quantum Information, 3(1):16, 2017

    2017

  108. [117]

    Challenges and opportunities in quantum optimization

    Amira Abbas, Andris Ambainis, Brandon Augustino, Andreas Bärtschi, Harry Buhrman, Carleton Coffrin, Giorgio Cortiana, Vedran Dunjko, Daniel J Egger, Bruce G Elmegreen, et al. Challenges and opportunities in quantum optimization. Nature Reviews Physics, pages 1–18, 2024

    2024

  109. [118]

    Classical optimization strategies for variational quantum algorithms: A systematic study of noise effects and parameter efficiency.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.09314, 2025

    Tomáš Bezděk, Haomu Yuan, Vojtěch Novák, Silvie Illésová, and Martin Beseda. Classical optimization strategies for variational quantum algorithms: A systematic study of noise effects and parameter efficiency.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.09314, 2025

    2025

  110. [119]

    Resource estimation for vqe on small molecules: Impact of fermion mappings and hamiltonian reductions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.01605, 2025

    Ashish Kumar Patra, Vikas Dattatraya Ghevade, Ruchika Bhat, Rahul Maitra, et al. Resource estimation for vqe on small molecules: Impact of fermion mappings and hamiltonian reductions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.01605, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  111. [120]

    Extending qaoa-gpt to higher-order quantum optimization problems

    Leanto Sunny, Abhinav Rijal, and George Siopsis. Extending qaoa-gpt to higher-order quantum optimization problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.07391, 2025

    2025

  112. [121]

    Higher-order portfolio optimization with quantum approximate optimization algorithm

    Valter Uotila, Julia Ripatti, and Bo Zhao. Higher-order portfolio optimization with quantum approximate optimization algorithm. In2025 IEEE InternationalConference on QuantumComputing and Engineering (QCE), volume 1, pages 01–12. IEEE, 2025

    2025

  113. [122]

    A review on quantum approximate optimization algorithm and its variants.Physics Reports, 1068:1–66, 2024

    Kostas Blekos, Dean Brand, Andrea Ceschini, Chiao-Hui Chou, Rui-Hao Li, Komal Pandya, and Alessandro Summer. A review on quantum approximate optimization algorithm and its variants.Physics Reports, 1068:1–66, 2024

    2024

  114. [123]

    Floquet-engineering counterdiabatic protocols in quantum many-body systems.Physical review letters, 123(9):090602, 2019

    Pieter W Claeys, Mohit Pandey, Dries Sels, and Anatoli Polkovnikov. Floquet-engineering counterdiabatic protocols in quantum many-body systems.Physical review letters, 123(9):090602, 2019

    2019

  115. [124]

    Suppressing counter-rotating errors for fast single-qubit gates with fluxonium.PRX Quantum, 5(4):040342, 2024

    David A Rower, Leon Ding, Helin Zhang, Max Hays, Junyoung An, Patrick M Harrington, Ilan T Rosen, Jeffrey M Gertler, Thomas M Hazard, Bethany M Niedzielski, et al. Suppressing counter-rotating errors for fast single-qubit gates with fluxonium.PRX Quantum, 5(4):040342, 2024

    2024

  116. [125]

    Single-qubit gates with errors at the 10-7 level.Physical Review Letters, 134(23):230601, 2025

    Molly C Smith, Aaron D Leu, Koichiro Miyanishi, Mario F Gely, and David M Lucas. Single-qubit gates with errors at the 10-7 level.Physical Review Letters, 134(23):230601, 2025

    2025

  117. [126]

    24 days-stable cnot gate on fluxonium qubits with over 99.9% fidelity.PRX Quantum, 6(1):010349, 2025

    Wei-Ju Lin, Hyunheung Cho, Yinqi Chen, Maxim G Vavilov, Chen Wang, and Vladimir E Manucharyan. 24 days-stable cnot gate on fluxonium qubits with over 99.9% fidelity.PRX Quantum, 6(1):010349, 2025

    2025

  118. [127]

    Scalable, high-fidelity all-electronic control of trapped-ion qubits.PRX Quantum, 6(4):040313, 2025

    CM Löschnauer, J Mosca Toba, AC Hughes, SA King, MA Weber, R Srinivas, R Matt, R Nourshargh, DTC Allcock, CJ Ballance, et al. Scalable, high-fidelity all-electronic control of trapped-ion qubits.PRX Quantum, 6(4):040313, 2025

    2025

  119. [128]

    99.9%-fidelity in measuring a superconducting qubit.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13849, 2024

    Can Wang, Feng-Ming Liu, He Chen, Yi-Fei Du, Chong Ying, Jian-Wen Wang, Yong-Heng Huo, Cheng-Zhi Peng, Xiaobo Zhu, Ming-Cheng Chen, et al. 99.9%-fidelity in measuring a superconducting qubit.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13849, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  120. [129]

    High- fidelity heralded quantum state preparation and measurement.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05805, 2024

    AS Sotirova, JD Leppard, A Vazquez-Brennan, SM Decoppet, F Pokorny, M Malinowski, and CJ Ballance. High- fidelity heralded quantum state preparation and measurement.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05805, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  121. [130]

    Karalekas, Andre A

    Ryan LaRose, Andrea Mari, Sarah Kaiser, Peter J. Karalekas, Andre A. Alves, Piotr Czarnik, Mohamed El Mandouh, Max H. Gordon, Yousef Hindy, Aaron Robertson, Purva Thakre, Misty Wahl, Danny Samuel, Rahul Mistri, Maxime Tremblay, Nick Gardner, Nathaniel T. Stemen, Nathan Shammah...

    2022

  122. [131]

    Performance comparison of optimization methods on variational quantum algorithms

    Xavier Bonet-Monroig, Hao Wang, Diederick Vermetten, Bruno Senjean, Charles Moussa, Thomas Bäck, Vedran Dunjko, and Thomas E O’Brien. Performance comparison of optimization methods on variational quantum algorithms. Physical Review A, 107(3):032407, 2023. ⟨46⟩

    2023

  123. [132]

    An adaptive mixer allocation strategy for the quantum alternating operator ansatz.Advanced Quantum Technologies, page e00487, 2025

    Xiao-Hui Ni, Yu-Sen Wu, Bin-Bin Cai, Wen-Min Li, Su-Juan Qin, and Fei Gao. An adaptive mixer allocation strategy for the quantum alternating operator ansatz.Advanced Quantum Technologies, page e00487, 2025

    2025

  124. [133]

    Kanqas: Kolmogorov-arnold network for quantum architecture search

    Akash Kundu, Aritra Sarkar, and Abhishek Sadhu. Kanqas: Kolmogorov-arnold network for quantum architecture search. EPJ Quantum Technology, 11(1):76, 2024

    2024

  125. [134]

    Accelerated variational quantum eigensolver.Physical review letters, 122(14):140504, 2019

    Daochen Wang, Oscar Higgott, and Stephen Brierley. Accelerated variational quantum eigensolver.Physical review letters, 122(14):140504, 2019

    2019

  126. [135]

    Efficiently architecting vqas: Expressibility–trainability–resources pareto-optimality.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.22142, 2026

    Rodrigo M Sanz, Andreu Angles-Castillo, Eduard Alarcon, and Carmen G Almudever. Efficiently architecting vqas: Expressibility–trainability–resources pareto-optimality.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.22142, 2026

    2026

  127. [136]

    Model selection in hybrid quantum neural networks with applications to quantum transformer architectures.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.21749, 2026

    Harsh Wadhwa, Rahul Bhowmick, Naipunnya Raj, Rajiv Sangle, Ruchira V Bhat, and Krishnakumar Sabapathy. Model selection in hybrid quantum neural networks with applications to quantum transformer architectures.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.21749, 2026

    2026

  128. [137]

    Quantum Intermediate Representation (QIR) specification, 2022

    QIR Alliance. Quantum Intermediate Representation (QIR) specification, 2022

    2022

  129. [138]

    Integrating quantum software tools with (in) mlir

    Patrick Hopf, Erick Ochoa, Yannick Stade, Damian Rovara, Nils Quetschlich, Ioan Albert Florea, Josh Izaac, Robert Wille, and Lukas Burgholzer. Integrating quantum software tools with (in) mlir. InProceedings of the Supercomputing Asia and International Conference on High Perfo...

    2026

  130. [139]

    Towards supporting qir: Thoughts on adopting the quantum intermediate representation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18682, 2024

    Yannick Stade, Lukas Burgholzer, and Robert Wille. Towards supporting qir: Thoughts on adopting the quantum intermediate representation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18682, 2024

    2024

  131. [140]

    A mlir dialect for quantum assembly languages

    Alexander McCaskey and Thien Nguyen. A mlir dialect for quantum assembly languages. In2021 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), pages 255–264. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  132. [141]

    Qiro: A static single assignment-based quantum program representation for optimization.ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 3(3):1–32, 2022

    David Ittah, Thomas Häner, Vadym Kliuchnikov, and Torsten Hoefler. Qiro: A static single assignment-based quantum program representation for optimization.ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 3(3):1–32, 2022

    2022

  133. [142]

    Compiler optimization for quantum computing using reinforcement learning

    Nils Quetschlich, Lukas Burgholzer, and Robert Wille. Compiler optimization for quantum computing using reinforcement learning. In2023 60th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  134. [143]

    Optimizing quantum circuits, fast and slow

    Amanda Xu, Abtin Molavi, Swamit Tannu, and Aws Albarghouthi. Optimizing quantum circuits, fast and slow. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Volume 1, pages 777–793, 2025

    2025

  135. [144]

    Symbolic regression with a learned concept library.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:44678–44709, 2024

    Arya Grayeli, Atharva Sehgal, Omar Costilla Reyes, Miles Cranmer, and Swarat Chaudhuri. Symbolic regression with a learned concept library.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:44678–44709, 2024

    2024

  136. [145]

    A promising path towards autoformalization and general artificial intelligence

    Christian Szegedy. A promising path towards autoformalization and general artificial intelligence. InInternational Conference on Intelligent Computer Mathematics, pages 3–20. Springer, 2020

    2020

  137. [146]

    Autoformalization with large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:32353–32368, 2022

    Yuhuai Wu, Albert Qiaochu Jiang, Wenda Li, Markus Rabe, Charles Staats, Mateja Jamnik, and Christian Szegedy. Autoformalization with large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:32353–32368, 2022

    2022

  138. [147]

    Merlean: An agentic framework for autoformalization in quantum computation

    Yuanjie Ren, Jinzheng Li, and Yidi Qi. Merlean: An agentic framework for autoformalization in quantum computation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.16554, 2026

    2026

  139. [148]

    Model context protocol (mcp): Landscape, security threats, and future research directions.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 2025

    Xinyi Hou, Yanjie Zhao, Shenao Wang, and Haoyu Wang. Model context protocol (mcp): Landscape, security threats, and future research directions.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 2025

    2025

  140. [149]

    Automated quantum software engineering.Automated Software Engineering, 31(1):36, 2024

    Aritra Sarkar. Automated quantum software engineering.Automated Software Engineering, 31(1):36, 2024. ⟨47⟩

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.