Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 59 references

Nontrivial multi-product commutation relation toward reducing T-count in sequential Pauli-based computation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A four-axis commutation identity lets non-commuting Pauli rotations exchange places; current T-count optimizers do not use it.

desk verdict The MCR identity is correctly proved, but the empirical claim that existing compilers 'lack MCR' is underdetermined—no MCR-aware optimizer is ever run, and the abstract overclaims a result the body defers to future work. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.20052 v3 pith:RVUTAB73 submitted 2025-09-24 quant-ph

Yusei Mori , Hideaki Hakoshima , Keisuke Fujii This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P68 PACS 03.67.Lx
keywords T-countoptimizationmulti-productcommutationrelationsequentialPauli-basedcomputationClifford+Tcircuitsquantumcircuitunoptimizationmulti-Paulirotationscompilerbenchmarkingancilla-freetransformations
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

The paper's central claim is that four multi-Pauli rotations whose axes satisfy the multi-product commutation relation (MCR) can be reordered as two composite blocks, even though the individual gates across the blocks anticommute. The authors prove that when axes A, B, C, D obey [A,B]=[C,D]=0, every cross pair anticommutes, and [A+B,C+D]=0, the product R_D R_C R_B R_A equals R_B R_A R_D R_C. They further show that for any commuting pair A, B and any C anticommuting with both, the fourth axis is simply D = −ABC, giving a constructive recipe. Using MCR to build redundant “unoptimized” circuits with known optimal T-count—the number of expensive non-Clifford T gates—the paper reports that four state-of-the-art T-count reduction compilers fail to shrink these circuits back to the optimum, especially at larger qubit counts. The implied payoff: if compilers incorporated MCR-aware rewrites, they could reduce the number of costly T gates beyond what pairwise-commutation-based optimization achieves.

What carries the argument

The central object is the multi-product commutation relation (MCR), a condition on four multi-Pauli rotation axes A, B, C, D. It says that the two axes inside each pair commute, every axis in one pair anticommutes with every axis in the other, and the pair sums themselves commute; under these conditions the four-gate product can be exchanged as two commuting two-gate blocks. Theorem 2 turns the condition into a constructive recipe: choose commuting A and B, choose C anticommuting with both, and set D = −ABC. In the sequential-PBC representation, a T layer is a set of mutually commuting rotations, and MCR allows two T layers to swap as composite units even though their individual gates antico

What would settle it

Take one of the paper's MCR-generated unoptimized circuits (e.g., an n=9 case with T-count 970) and run it through a compiler that explicitly includes an MCR-matching pass: search for axis quadruples A, B, C, D with D = −ABC, apply the swap, and merge like axes. If the circuit's T-count stays near 970, the claim that MCR itself is the missing transformation is not supported; if it drops close to the guaranteed optimal value, the claim is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Any Clifford+T circuit can be rewritten without ancillas as a Clifford block followed by a product of ±π/4 multi-Pauli rotations (sequential PBC). The main theorem states that for four distinct Pauli axes A, B, C, D with [A,B]=[C,D]=0, with A and B each anticommuting with C and D, and with [A+B,C+D]=0, the four-gate sequence R_D(π/4)R_C(π/4)R_B(π/4)R_A(π/4) is exactly equal to R_B(π/4)R_A(π/4)R_D(π/4)R_C(π/4). The companion construction theorem says that once A, B, C are chosen with A and B commuting and C anticommuting with both, the fourth axis is D = −ABC. Applying such a swap can turn two anticommuting pairs into two commuting pairs, allowing like-axis rotations to merge into Clifford ga

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the near-zero T-count reduction rates reported in the numerical experiments show the specific missing ingredient is the MCR rewrite, rather than the general difficulty of finding short equivalent circuits—an interpretation the paper does not test with a positive MCR-based optimizer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any compiler that adds an MCR-matching pass can rewrite an anticommuting four-rotation block into a form where adjacent same-axis rotations merge, lowering T-count on circuits that current tools leave unchanged.
  • The number of axis quadruples satisfying MCR grows exponentially with qubit count, so the rule becomes more, not less, relevant as circuits scale up.
  • MCR-based unoptimization produces benchmark circuits with a guaranteed optimal T-count, giving a quantitative metric (the reduction rate p) for testing whether any compiler has learned the rule.
  • Because the swap uses only commutation relations among axes, the same construction extends to Clifford+R_Z circuits with continuous rotation angles, where reducing non-Clifford rotations matters for Trotterized simulation and variational circuits.
  • The paper's experiments show that four different compiler strategies—diagrammatic, phase-polynomial, and Pauli-merging—all fail to recover the original T-count on MCR-generated redundancy at large qubit counts, evidence of an untapped class of rewrites.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: a positive control is missing—the paper does not implement an MCR-based optimizer that takes the same unoptimized circuits and reduces them, so the benchmark alone cannot prove the rewrites are absent from existing compilers; it could reflect the general hardness of equivalent-circuit search.
  • The paper's front matter says an “MCR Compiler” achieves further T-count reduction, but the body's experiments only benchmark existing compilers against MCR-generated redundancy. I read the body's claim—MCR is not yet incorporated—as the operative one, and a working MCR compiler pass as the direct validation the front-matter wording implies but does not report.
  • My inference: because MCR is a pure axis-level condition, it could be implemented as a peephole pattern matcher over sequential-PBC representations, scanning for quadruples satisfying D = −ABC and applying the swap before merging; this is a concrete design for the search strategy the authors say is needed.
  • My inference: the exponential growth of valid MCR candidates suggests brute-force search will not scale; an efficient pass would likely restrict attention to local neighborhoods around existing same-axis merge opportunities, where the swap has immediate payoff.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new exact, ancilla-free rewrite rule, the multi-product commutation relation (MCR), for sequential Pauli-based computation. Theorem 1 (Eq. 11) states that under conditions [A,B]=[C,D]=0, all four cross pairs anticommute, and [A+B,C+D]=0, the two-gate blocks (R_B R_A) and (R_D R_C) can be exchanged. Theorem 2 gives D=-ABC as a constructive condition for the fourth axis. The authors embed MCR identities into a quantum-circuit unoptimization procedure, producing benchmark circuits from a single R_ZZ...Z(pi/4) gate with guaranteed T-count 1, then measure the reduction rate p=(t_unopt-t_opt)/(t_unopt-1) for Pytket, PyZX, TMerge, and FastTODD. Tables I and II report very low or zero reduction rates. The authors conclude that MCR is absent from current compilers and has untapped potential for T-count reduction. The abstract quoted in the submission additionally claims that an 'MCR Compiler' achieves further reduction, but no such compiler is implemented or evaluated in the body.

Significance. The algebraic core is a genuine and clean contribution. Theorem 1 is proved directly from the commutation of the summed rotation axes, and Theorem 2 gives a simple, parameter-free construction; no fitting is involved. The unoptimization benchmark has a strong design feature: the input is a single multi-Pauli rotation with known optimal T-count, and circuit equivalence is verified with MQT, with source code released. If a positive MCR-aware pass were demonstrated, the claim that MCR is a missing compilation primitive would be important for quantum compiler design. As it stands, the empirical evidence is a negative result about existing heuristics, not a positive demonstration of MCR's utility. The discrepancy between the quoted abstract and the body's future-work statement is material. The paper is promising but needs revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract (as quoted) and Sec. I / Sec. V] The abstract claims that an 'MCR Compiler' is proposed and 'achieves further T-count reduction beyond current compilers.' No MCR-aware compiler is implemented in the paper: Sec. IV D evaluates only Pytket, PyZX, TMerge, and FastTODD, and Sec. V explicitly lists designing an MCR-based compiler as 'a key direction for future work.' The first-page abstract is more cautious, but the advertised abstract is unsupported as written. Either implement an MCR-aware pass and report its reduction on the same benchmark circuits, or revise the abstract and conclusions to claim only that existing compilers fail to reduce MCR-unoptimized circuits.
  2. [Sec. IV D, Eq. (16), Tables I and II] The empirical conclusion that MCR is not incorporated into current compilers is underdetermined. The experiments are entirely negative: four existing heuristics fail to compress MCR-generated circuits. Table II, which omits the MCR-based gate swapping and uses only MCR insertion, also reports p=0 for every compiler and every n, so the MCR-specific swap is not necessary to explain the failure. The paper does not supply a positive control—for example, a pass that applies Eq. (11) to the same unoptimized circuits and demonstrably returns T-count 1. Without such a control, the results cannot distinguish 'the MCR rule is missing' from 'these heuristics cannot solve hard equivalent-circuit search.' This is the central interpretive step and needs either a positive MCR-aware rewrite demonstration or a suitably weakened claim.
  3. [Appendix A, proof of Theorem 2] The (=>) direction of Theorem 2 is not fully justified. From AC+AD+BC+BD=0 and linear independence of Pauli operators, cancellations other than the two pairings listed are possible, e.g., AD=-BD (so A=-B) or AD=-AC (so D=-C). These are excluded by the distinctness assumption, but the proof should state this; as written, the claim that 'the only possibility is...' is too strong. I believe the theorem is correct, but the proof needs tightening.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B] The counting formula does not follow from the preceding bullet choices. The text says C has 4^n-1 choices because one-fourth of all Pauli operators anticommute with both A and B; for unsigned Pauli strings this should be 4^{n-2}, and with the sign convention of Eq. (8) the accounting changes. Eq. (B1) also does not match the product of the listed A, B, C counts after division by 8. Since only exponential growth is used, this is not fatal, but the appendix should be corrected.
  2. [Eq. (11) and Fig. 7] The product-order convention (left-to-right versus right-to-left) should be stated explicitly. The equation writes R_D R_C R_B R_A while the circuit diagram is read left-to-right; a one-sentence convention would avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Sec. IV D, Table I] The text states that FastTODD runtimes exceed 21 hours per circuit at n=9, but no runtime column is given in Table I. A supplemental table or a caption entry would help the reader interpret the reported cost.
  4. [Title and formatting] Minor typographical issues: 'reducingT-count' in the title line lacks a space, and the phrase 'T-counts t_unopt and t_opt increase' in Sec. IV D can be streamlined.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

MCR derivation is self-contained; benchmark underdetermination and the abstract's unsupported MCR-Compiler claim are correctness concerns, not circularity; score reflects one minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is Theorem 1 / Theorem 2: axes satisfying Definition 2 are shown to satisfy Eq. (11). This is a transparent algebraic proof: conditions 1 and 3 give R_D R_C = exp(-i pi/8 (D+C)) and R_B R_A = exp(-i pi/8 (B+A)), and condition 3 [A+B,C+D]=0 is exactly the commutativity of those two exponentials. Condition 2 only excludes the trivial all-commuting case. This is an explicit stated sufficient condition, not a fitted parameter or a hidden prediction, so the algebraic core is not circular. The unoptimization benchmark is also self-contained: the input is a single multi-Pauli pi/4 rotation, hence t_original=1 is guaranteed; Algorithm 1 constructs equivalent redundant circuits and MQT-qcec is used to verify equivalence; the four compilers evaluated are external tools, so their failure to restore t_original=1 is external evidence rather than a consequence of the paper's own implementation. The only self-referential element is Ref. [34], cited for the definition of quantum circuit unoptimization; it is not load-bearing for the MCR algebra or for the guaranteed optimal T-count. I also flag a separate, non-circular weakness: the abstract claims an 'MCR Compiler' achieves further T-count reduction, but Sec. V defers an MCR-aware compiler to future work and no positive MCR-based optimization pass is actually run. The observed zero-reduction benchmarks therefore cannot distinguish 'MCR is missing from compilers' from general intractability of the compilers' equivalence search. This is an empirical-support / interpretation issue, not a circularity reduction, and it does not raise the circularity score. The score of 2 reflects the minor non-load-bearing self-citation only.

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

The contribution is a mathematical rewrite rule, not an explanation requiring a new physical entity. The derivation relies on standard Pauli algebra and the known sequential-PBC normal form. No free parameters are fitted: the only tunable choices, such as the n^2 repetition count and random selection of axes A, B, C, are recipe settings that do not enter Theorems 1 and 2.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Pauli operators form an orthogonal basis under the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product.
    Used in Appendix A in the proof of Theorem 2 to argue that a sum of Pauli terms vanishes only by pairwise cancellation.
  • domain assumption Any Clifford+T circuit can be rewritten as a Clifford block followed by a sequential PBC of +/-pi/4 multi-Pauli rotations.
    Invoked in Sec. II B, Eq. (10), citing Ref. [29]. The MCR framework lives inside this normal form.
  • domain assumption A multi-Pauli rotation R_P(pi/4) decomposes exactly into Clifford gates plus one T gate, up to global phase.
    Used in Sec. IV C to guarantee that the input circuit has optimal T-count equal to 1.
  • domain assumption The unoptimization operations, gate insertion and swapping, preserve circuit equivalence up to global phase.
    Definition 3 and the procedure in Sec. IV B; correctness is checked with MQT rather than proved in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nontrivial multi-product commutation relation toward reducing T-count in sequential Pauli-based computation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RVUTAB73

@misc{pith2026250920052,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nontrivial multi-product commutation relation toward reducing T-count in sequential Pauli-based computation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RVUTAB73}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.20052}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum compilers that reduce the number of T gates are essential for minimizing the overhead of fault-tolerant quantum computation. Achieving further T-count reduction calls for identifying equivalent circuit transformation rules beyond those utilized in existing tools. In this paper, we rewrite any given Clifford+T circuit using a Clifford block followed by a sequential Pauli-based computation, and introduce a nontrivial, ancilla-free transformation rule, the multi-product commutation relation (MCR). MCR constructs gate sequences based on specific commutation properties among multi-Pauli operators, yielding seemingly non-commutative instances that can be commuted, thereby enabling gate orderings that cannot be derived from pairwise commutation alone. We also propose the MCR Compiler, which incorporates MCR-based transformations as an optimization pass. To evaluate its effect, we use a benchmark circuit dataset generated through quantum circuit unoptimization. This approach intentionally adds redundancy to the circuit while keeping its equivalence, allowing a quantitative evaluation of compiler performance by comparison with the original circuit. Our numerical experiments reveal that the MCR Compiler achieves further T-count reduction beyond current compilers, establishing MCR-based transformations as a practical optimization primitive. These results highlight an untapped opportunity to enhance the optimization capabilities of quantum compilers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.20052 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. An overview of the quantum compiler benchmarking procedure for Clifford+ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Decomposition of the three-qubit rotation gate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5. Transformation of a circuit segment containing one [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Circuit diagram illustrating the gate sequence satis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Optimization of the circuit shown in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. A gate insertion example based on Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Schematic illustration of quantum circuit unopti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Construction of a quantum circuit that implements [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Overview of MCR-based quantum circuit unoptimization. (a) The input circuit, consisting of a single multi-Pauli [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. An example workflow for assessing quantum com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 8 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Although its primary focus is on circuit depth reduction, it also includes aT- count optimization pass

    Pytket [18] Developed by Quantinuum, Pytket is a general- purpose compiler that supports optimization for NISQ devices. Although its primary focus is on circuit depth reduction, it also includes aT- count optimization pass. In our experiments, we useRemoveRedundanciesto eliminate unnecessary Tgates. 10

  2. [2]

    It includes graph-theoretic optimization techniques such as local complemen- tation and pivoting [21, 22] usingX-Spiders and Z-Spiders

    PyZX [35] PyZX applies optimization techniques based on ZX-calculus, which represents a quantum circuit as a graphical diagram. It includes graph-theoretic optimization techniques such as local complemen- tation and pivoting [21, 22] usingX-Spiders and Z-Spiders. We usefull_reducefunction for max- imum simplification in the ZX-diagram, and then convert it...

  3. [3]

    As described in Sec

    TMerge [32] TMerge reduces theT-count by exploiting the com- mutativity of Pauli rotation axes. As described in Sec. II B, it first separates the input Clifford+Tcir- cuit into a Clifford gate sequence and a sequen- tial PBC. This compiler can reorder them within eachTlayer and merge rotation gates that have the same axis

  4. [4]

    FastTODD [27] FastTODD uses phase-polynomial as an IR and op- timizes theT-count by solving the symmetric ten- sor rank decomposition problem [36]. It removes all internal Hadamard gates by introducing ancilla qubits and applies a fast version of the Third Order Duplicate and Destroy (TODD) algorithm [26] to minimize theT-count. We create the benchmark ci...

  5. [5]

    Select one element fromP ∗ n and set it asA

  6. [6]

    ChooseB∈ P ∗ n such thatBcommutes withA

  7. [7]

    ChooseC∈ P ∗ n such that{A, C}={B, C}= 0

  8. [8]

    Let us determine the number of ways to select the ro- tation axes according to this procedure

    ObtainDby settingD=−ABC. Let us determine the number of ways to select the ro- tation axes according to this procedure. First, the axis Acan be chosen from any non-identity Pauli operator, giving 4 n −1 possible choices. The second axisBmust commute withAand must not be equal toAor the iden- tity. In general, for any given Pauli operator, half of the othe...

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    P. W. Shor, Algorithms for quantum computation: dis- crete logarithms and factoring, inProceedings 35th An- nual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (1994) pp. 124–134

    1994

  2. [10]

    L. K. Grover, A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search, inProceedings of the twenty-eighth an- nual ACM symposium on Theory of computing(1996) pp. 212–219

    1996

  3. [11]

    Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    1996

  4. [12]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum sim- ulation, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    P. W. Shor, Fault-tolerant quantum computation, inPro- ceedings of 37th Conference on Foundations of Computer Science(IEEE, 1996) pp. 56–65

    1996

  6. [14]

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature638, 920 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computa- tion and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edi- tion(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computa- tion with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005)

    2005

  9. [17]

    Svore, A

    K. Svore, A. Aho, A. Cross, I. Chuang, and I. Markov, A layered software architecture for quantum computing design tools, Computer39, 74 (2006)

    2006

  10. [18]

    H¨ aner, D

    T. H¨ aner, D. S. Steiger, K. Svore, and M. Troyer, A software methodology for compiling quantum programs, Quantum Science and Technology3, 020501 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    F. T. Chong, D. Franklin, and M. Martonosi, Program- ming languages and compiler design for realistic quantum hardware, Nature549, 180 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    V. A. Alfred, S. L. Monica, and D. U. Jeffrey,Compilers principles, techniques & tools(pearson Education, 2007)

    2007

  13. [21]

    Shende, S

    V. Shende, S. Bullock, and I. Markov, Synthesis of quantum-logic circuits, IEEE Transactions on Computer- Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems25, 1000 (2006)

    2006

  14. [22]

    C. M. Dawson and M. A. Nielsen, The solovay-kitaev algorithm, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0505030 (2005)

    2005 arXiv

  15. [23]

    N. J. Ross and P. Selinger, Optimal ancilla-free Clifford+Tapproximation of z-rotations, arXiv preprint arXiv:1403.2975 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Cowtan, S

    A. Cowtan, S. Dilkes, R. Duncan, A. Krajenbrink, W. Simmons, and S. Sivarajah, On the Qubit Routing Problem, in14th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography (TQC 2019), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informat- ics (LIPIcs), Vol. 135...

    2019

  17. [25]

    Treinish, J

    M. Treinish, J. Gambetta, D. M. Rodr ´ ıguez, L. Bello, M. Marques, C. J. Wood, J. Gacon, P. Nation, J. Gomez, ewinston, A. Cross, J. Lishman, K. Krsulich, I. F. Sertage, S. Wood, T. Alexander, L. Capelluto, N. Kanazawa, S. de la Puente Gonz´ alez, I. Hamamura, E. Navarro, J. ...

    2022

  18. [26]

    Sivarajah, S

    S. Sivarajah, S. Dilkes, A. Cowtan, W. Simmons, A. Edg- ington, and R. Duncan, t|ket⟩: a retargetable compiler for NISQ devices, Quantum Sci. Technol.6, 014003 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Amy and V

    M. Amy and V. Gheorghiu, staq—a full-stack quan- tum processing toolkit, Quantum Sci. Technol.5, 034016 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Coecke and R

    B. Coecke and R. Duncan, A graphical calculus for quan- tum observables, Preprint (2007)

    2007

  21. [29]

    Duncan, A

    R. Duncan, A. Kissinger, S. Perdrix, and J. Van De We- tering, Graph-theoretic simplification of quantum cir- cuits with the ZX-calculus, Quantum4, 279 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Kissinger and J

    A. Kissinger and J. van de Wetering, Reducing the num- ber of non-Clifford gates in quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. A102, 022406 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    M. Amy, D. Maslov, M. Mosca, and M. Roetteler, A meet-in-the-middle algorithm for fast synthesis of depth-optimal quantum circuits, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Sys- tems32, 818 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    M. Amy, D. Maslov, and M. Mosca, Polynomial-time T- depth optimization of Clifford+Tcircuits via matroid partitioning, IEEE TCAD33, 1476 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    Amy and M

    M. Amy and M. Mosca, T-count optimization and reed- muller codes, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.65, 4771 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    L. E. Heyfron and E. T. Campbell, An efficient quantum compiler that reducesTcount, Quantum Sci. Technol.4, 015004 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Vandaele, LowerT-count with faster algorithms, Quantum9, 1860 (2025)

    V. Vandaele, LowerT-count with faster algorithms, Quantum9, 1860 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    F. J. Ruiz, T. Laakkonen, J. Bausch, M. Balog, M. Barekatain, F. J. Heras, A. Novikov, N. Fitzpatrick, B. Romera-Paredes, J. van de Wetering,et al., Quantum circuit optimization with alphatensor, Nature Machine Intelligence7, 374 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Gosset, V

    D. Gosset, V. Kliuchnikov, M. Mosca, and V. Russo, An algorithm for the T-count, arXiv preprint arXiv:1308.4134 (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Litinski, A game of surface codes: Large-scale quan- tum computing with lattice surgery, Quantum3, 128 (2019)

    D. Litinski, A game of surface codes: Large-scale quan- tum computing with lattice surgery, Quantum3, 128 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Hirano and K

    Y. Hirano and K. Fujii, Locality-aware pauli-based com- putation for local magic state preparation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.12091 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Zhang and J

    F. Zhang and J. Chen, OptimizingTgates in clifford+T circuit asπ/4 rotations around paulis, arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.12456 (2019)

    1903 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Vandaele, S

    V. Vandaele, S. Perdrix, and C. Vuillot, Optimal num- ber of parametrized rotations and hadamard gates in parametrized clifford circuits with non-repeated param- eters, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07846 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Y. Mori, H. Hakoshima, K. Sudo, T. Mori, K. Mitarai, and K. Fujii, Quantum circuit unoptimization, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023139 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    Kissinger and J

    A. Kissinger and J. van de Wetering, PyZX: Large scale automated diagrammatic reasoning, Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci.318, 229 (2020)

    2020

  36. [45]

    Gidney, Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator, Quan- tum5, 497 (2021)

    C. Gidney, Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator, Quan- tum5, 497 (2021)

    2021

  37. [46]

    A. W. Cross, L. S. Bishop, J. A. Smolin, and J. M. Gam- betta, Open quantum assembly language, arXiv preprint 14 arXiv:1707.03429 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Reversible logic synthesis benchmarks page,http:// webhome.cs.uvic.ca/~dmaslov/(2011)

    2011

  39. [48]

    Wille, L

    R. Wille, L. Berent, T. Forster, J. Kunasaikaran, K. Mato, T. Peham, N. Quetschlich, D. Rovara, A. Sander, L. Schmid,et al., The mqt handbook: A sum- mary of design automation tools and software for quan- tum computing, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17543 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  40. [49]

    mcr,https://github.com/yforest-osaka/mcr(2025)

    2025

  41. [50]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nat. Commun.5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  42. [51]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm, arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. Van Den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zale- tel, K. Temme,et al., Evidence for the utility of quan- tum computing before fault tolerance, Nature618, 500 (2023)

    2023

  44. [53]

    Akahoshi, K

    Y. Akahoshi, K. Maruyama, H. Oshima, S. Sato, and K. Fujii, Partially fault-tolerant quantum computing ar- chitecture with error-corrected clifford gates and space- time efficient analog rotations, PRX Quantum5, 010337 (2024)

    2024

  45. [54]

    Toshio, Y

    R. Toshio, Y. Akahoshi, J. Fujisaki, H. Oshima, S. Sato, and K. Fujii, Practical quantum advantage on partially fault-tolerant quantum computer, Physical Review X15, 021057 (2025)

    2025

  46. [55]

    van de Wetering, R

    J. van de Wetering, R. Yeung, T. Laakkonen, and A. Kissinger, Optimal compilation of parametrised quan- tum circuits, Quantum9, 1828 (2025)

    2025

  47. [56]

    Nakano, H

    Y. Nakano, H. Hakoshima, K. Mitarai, and K. Fujii, Markov-chain monte carlo method enhanced by a quan- tum alternating operator ansatz, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033105 (2024)

    2024

  48. [57]

    Gottesman and I

    D. Gottesman and I. L. Chuang, Demonstrating the via- bility of universal quantum computation using teleporta- tion and single-qubit operations, Nature402, 390 (1999)

    1999

  49. [58]

    J. T. Anderson, On groups in the qubit clifford hierarchy, Quantum8, 1370 (2024)

    2024

  50. [59]

    H ˚ astad, Tensor rank is NP-complete, Journal of algo- rithms11, 644 (1990)

    J. H ˚ astad, Tensor rank is NP-complete, Journal of algo- rithms11, 644 (1990)

    1990

  51. [60]

    Kiumi and B

    C. Kiumi and B. Koczor, TE-PAI: exact time evo- lution by sampling random circuits, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.16850 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.