pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23358 · v1 · pith:T77T2ZTAnew · submitted 2026-05-22 · 🪐 quant-ph · cs.PL

A Compilation Framework for Quantum Simulation of Non-unitary Dynamics

Qifan Huang , Minbo Gao , Li Zhou , Mingsheng Ying This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 04:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cs.PL
keywords quantum compilationopen quantum systemsLindbladian simulationKraus representationquantum channelsgate optimizationnon-unitary dynamicsquantum simulation
0
0 comments X

The pith

A channel-first compiler framework treats quantum channels as first-class objects to simulate non-unitary dynamics with far fewer gates.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Standard quantum compilers assume programs consist of reversible unitary circuits, which matches closed-system algorithms but not open-system simulations whose natural objects are quantum channels. The paper introduces a compilation pipeline that keeps channels explicit from the start, using an intermediate representation in Kraus form that carries Pauli-sum structure to allow algebraic rewrites before any circuit is built. A frontend lowers continuous-time Lindbladian generators into short-time channels, and a backend applies structure-aware optimizations during circuit synthesis. On standard Lindbladian and channel benchmarks this pipeline produces circuits whose gate counts are up to 99 percent smaller than an unoptimized channel-first baseline and that scale better than direct Stinespring dilation of the same channels.

Core claim

The central claim is that representing quantum channels explicitly in Kraus form augmented with Pauli-sum structure inside ChannelIR permits algebraic rewrites and structure-aware optimizations that, when applied before circuit synthesis, yield executable circuits with substantially lower gate counts than either an unoptimized channel compilation path or a circuit-first Stinespring approach, as demonstrated on Lindbladian and channel-simulation benchmarks.

What carries the argument

ChannelIR, the core intermediate representation that encodes channels explicitly in Kraus form together with their Pauli-sum structure so that algebraic rewrites can be performed before any unitary circuit is synthesized.

If this is right

  • Open-system simulations can be compiled directly from Lindbladian generators to short-time channels and then to circuits without an intermediate unitary dilation step.
  • Algebraic rewrites on the Kraus operators become available while the representation is still at the channel level rather than after circuit synthesis.
  • Gate counts on Lindbladian and channel benchmarks drop by up to 99 percent relative to an unoptimized channel-first baseline.
  • The resulting circuits scale to larger instances more favorably than those obtained by circuit-first Stinespring compilation of the same channels.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same channel-level IR could serve as a bridge that lets existing unitary compilers accept open-system inputs without forcing the user to perform Stinespring dilation by hand.
  • If the Pauli-sum rewrites generalize, similar structure-aware passes could be added to compilers for other non-unitary tasks such as quantum error correction or continuous-time Markov processes.
  • Hardware experiments that measure actual two-qubit gate counts on near-term devices for small open-system models would provide a direct test of whether the reported reductions translate to wall-clock time savings.

Load-bearing premise

Channels given in Kraus form that also possess exploitable Pauli-sum structure will admit algebraic rewrites and backend optimizations whose benefits generalize beyond the tested benchmarks.

What would settle it

A benchmark suite of Kraus channels whose Pauli-sum decompositions admit no further algebraic simplification, compiled both with and without the structure-aware passes, showing no reduction in final gate count.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23358 by Li Zhou, Minbo Gao, Mingsheng Ying, Qifan Huang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The resulting channel represented in Kraus form within ChannelIR. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Compilation workflow for the motivating example. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Core syntax of ChannelIR. For a superoperator in Kraus form C (𝜌) = Í𝑚 𝑗=1 𝐾𝑗 𝜌𝐾† 𝑗 , ChannelIR represent it explicitly as the collection of Kraus operators channel{𝐾𝑗 }. Each Kraus operator 𝐾 is expressed in a linear combination form as 𝐾 = Í 𝑗 𝛽𝑗𝑃𝑗 , where 𝛽𝑗s are non-zero complex coefficients, and 𝑃𝑗s are primitive operators. During the compilation, this linear combination form is kept via a rewrite rul… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Rewrite rules for ChannelIR. The rule C3 (or C3’) is actually a special case of the rule C2 (or C2’). Soundness. We can show that rewrite rules do not change the semantics. Theorem 4.2. For the rewrite rules defined above and any ChannelIR program 𝐶, if 𝐶 ⇒𝑅 𝐶 ′ , then ⟦𝐶⟧ = ⟦𝐶 ′⟧ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of LCU-style circuit constructions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Two optimization targets in the LCU implementation pipeline: (a) the channel-level multiplexor over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Flattening a 3- controlled gate. 𝑛 𝑐0 𝑐1 𝑐2 |𝜓⟩ B [𝐴0] B [𝐴1] B [𝐴2] B [𝐴3] B [𝐴4] B [𝐴5] B [𝐴6] B [𝐴7] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A sketched workflow of Technique II. The first stage assigns Pauli strings into low-cost control [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Gate count comparison between QSVT (ours) and Trotter-based Hamiltonian simulation compilers at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Simulation error, measured by trace dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Simulation error (trace distance) compared with theoreti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Simulation accuracy of the quantum channel generated from higher-order expansion Lindbladian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_15.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Most quantum compilers assume programs are reversible unitary circuits. This fits closed-system algorithms, but not open-system simulation, where the natural program objects are quantum channels describing non-unitary dynamics. We present a channel-first compilation framework that treats channels as first-class compilation objects. Our core IR, ChannelIR, represents channels explicitly in Kraus form, a standard channel representation, with Pauli-sum structure, enabling algebraic rewrites before circuit synthesis. We instantiate the framework with LindFront, a frontend that lowers continuous-time Lindbladian generators to short-time channels, and a backend that compiles these channels to executable circuits with structure-aware optimizations. On Lindbladian and channel-simulation benchmarks, the optimized pipeline reduces gate count by up to 99% over an unoptimized channel-first baseline and scales better than circuit-first Stinespring compilation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a channel-first compilation framework for quantum simulation of non-unitary dynamics. It introduces ChannelIR as an intermediate representation that encodes channels explicitly in Kraus form with Pauli-sum structure to enable algebraic rewrites, LindFront as a frontend that lowers continuous-time Lindbladian generators to short-time channels, and a backend that performs structure-aware optimizations before circuit synthesis. The central empirical claim is that the optimized pipeline achieves up to 99% gate-count reduction on Lindbladian and channel-simulation benchmarks relative to an unoptimized channel-first baseline while scaling better than circuit-first Stinespring compilation.

Significance. If the reported reductions are reproducible and the algebraic rewrites prove effective beyond the chosen benchmarks, the work would address a genuine gap in quantum compilers by elevating channels to first-class objects rather than forcing everything through unitary circuits. The reliance on standard Kraus and Lindblad representations is a strength, as is the explicit separation of frontend lowering from backend optimization. However, the absence of detailed benchmark tables, error metrics, or generalization analysis in the provided description limits the immediate impact assessment.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The headline claim that the optimized pipeline 'reduces gate count by up to 99%' is presented without any accompanying benchmark table, list of test instances, Kraus-rank statistics, or error-analysis protocol. Because this quantitative superiority is the load-bearing result, the lack of these details prevents evaluation of whether the advantage is robust or benchmark-specific.
  2. [Abstract, §3] Abstract and §3 (ChannelIR description): The performance advantage is attributed to 'algebraic rewrites' that exploit Kraus + Pauli-sum structure, yet no general argument, complexity bound, or counter-example analysis is supplied showing that these rewrites remain effective once the input channel lacks the sparsity, commutativity, or low Kraus rank present in the reported instances. This makes the generalization claim an unverified assumption rather than a demonstrated property.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'Lindbladian and channel-simulation benchmarks' without defining the precise set of generators or channels used; a short table or appendix listing the instances would improve reproducibility.
  2. [Abstract] Notation for the Pauli-sum decomposition inside ChannelIR is introduced without an explicit equation reference in the abstract; cross-referencing the defining equation in the main text would aid readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The headline claim that the optimized pipeline 'reduces gate count by up to 99%' is presented without any accompanying benchmark table, list of test instances, Kraus-rank statistics, or error-analysis protocol. Because this quantitative superiority is the load-bearing result, the lack of these details prevents evaluation of whether the advantage is robust or benchmark-specific.

    Authors: Detailed benchmark tables, including the full list of test instances, Kraus-rank statistics for each channel, and the error-analysis protocol (comparing to exact channel simulation), appear in Section 5. The abstract is intended as a high-level summary. We will revise the abstract to include a short clause referencing the benchmark suite and directing readers to Section 5 for the supporting data. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract, §3] Abstract and §3 (ChannelIR description): The performance advantage is attributed to 'algebraic rewrites' that exploit Kraus + Pauli-sum structure, yet no general argument, complexity bound, or counter-example analysis is supplied showing that these rewrites remain effective once the input channel lacks the sparsity, commutativity, or low Kraus rank present in the reported instances. This makes the generalization claim an unverified assumption rather than a demonstrated property.

    Authors: The manuscript reports empirical results on the specific Lindbladian and channel benchmarks described in Section 5; it does not assert that the rewrites are effective for arbitrary dense channels. The rewrites themselves are defined for any Kraus representation with Pauli-sum structure, but their gate-count impact is structure-dependent. We will revise §3 to explicitly state the scope of the claims, note that no general complexity bound is provided, and add a brief discussion of when the rewrites are expected to be most beneficial. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: framework uses standard Kraus/Lindblad representations with empirical benchmark results

full rationale

The paper introduces a channel-first compilation pipeline with ChannelIR based on explicit Kraus representations and Pauli-sum structure for rewrites, followed by LindFront lowering and structure-aware backend synthesis. Performance results (gate-count reductions on Lindbladian/channel benchmarks) are reported as direct empirical comparisons against baselines, without any fitted parameters renamed as predictions, self-definitional equations, or load-bearing self-citations. All core objects (channels, Kraus operators, Lindbladians) are drawn from established quantum information theory and the reported speedups are observations on chosen instances rather than derivations that reduce to their own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract introduces no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the framework relies on established quantum channel representations such as Kraus form.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5667 in / 1075 out tokens · 62492 ms · 2026-05-25T04:28:54.713658+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Matthew Amy, Parsiad Azimzadeh, and Michele Mosca. 2018. On the controlled-NOT complexity of controlled- NOT–phase circuits.Quantum Science and Technology4, 1 (sep 2018), 015002. doi:10.1088/2058-9565/aad8ca

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/aad8ca 2018

  2. [2]

    Anonymous. 2026. Lindbladian Compilation (Anonymous). https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Lindbladian_ compilation-31BF/. Anonymous GitHub repository, accessed 2026-03-17

    work page 2026

  3. [3]

    Babbush, C

    Ryan Babbush, Craig Gidney, Dominic W. Berry, Nathan Wiebe, Jarrod McClean, Alexandru Paler, Austin Fowler, and Hartmut Neven. 2018. Encoding Electronic Spectra in Quantum Circuits with Linear T Complexity.Phys. Rev. X8, 4 (Oct. 2018), 041015. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.8.041015

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.8.041015 2018

  4. [4]

    Michael Beverland, Earl Campbell, Mark Howard, and Vadym Kliuchnikov. 2020. Lower Bounds on the Non-Clifford Resources for Quantum Computations.Quantum Sci. Technol.5, 3 (July 2020), 035009. doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ab8963

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ab8963 2020

  5. [5]

    Evan Borras and Milad Marvian. 2025. Quantum Algorithm to Simulate Lindblad Master Equations.Physical Review Research7, 2 (April 2025), 023076. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.7.023076

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.7.023076 2025

  6. [6]

    2007.The Theory of Open Quantum Systems

    Heinz-Peter Breuer. 2007.The Theory of Open Quantum Systems. Clarendon, Oxford. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/ 9780199213900.001.0001

    work page doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/ 2007

  7. [7]

    Earl Campbell. 2019. Random Compiler for Fast Hamiltonian Simulation.Physical Review Letters123, 7 (Aug. 2019). doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.070503

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.070503 2019

  8. [8]

    Xiuqi Cao, Junyu Zhou, Yuhao Liu, Yunong Shi, and Gushu Li. 2025. MarQSim: Reconciling Determinism and Randomness in Compiler Optimization for Quantum Simulation.Proc. ACM Program. Lang.9, PLDI (June 2025), 576–600. doi:10.1145/3729269

    work page doi:10.1145/3729269 2025

  9. [9]

    Chi-Fang Chen, Michael Kastoryano, Fernando G S L Brandão, and András Gilyén. 2025. Efficient quantum thermal simulation.Nature646, 8085 (Oct. 2025), 561–566. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09583-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09583-x 2025

  10. [10]

    Zherui Chen, Yuchen Lu, Hao Wang, Yizhou Liu, and Tongyang Li. 2025. Quantum Langevin Dynamics for Optimization. Communications in Mathematical Physics406, 3 (March 2025), 52. doi:10.1007/s00220-025-05234-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s00220-025-05234-4 2025

  11. [11]

    Childs and Tongyang Li

    Andrew M. Childs and Tongyang Li. 2017. Efficient Simulation of Sparse Markovian Quantum Dynamics.Quantum Information and Computation17, 11&12 (Sept. 2017), 901–947. doi:10.26421/QIC17.11-12-1

    work page doi:10.26421/qic17.11-12-1 2017

  12. [12]

    Childs, Dmitri Maslov, Yunseong Nam, Neil J

    Andrew M. Childs, Dmitri Maslov, Yunseong Nam, Neil J. Ross, and Yuan Su. 2018. Toward the first quantum simulation with quantum speedup.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115, 38 (2018), 9456–9461. doi:10.1073/pnas.1801723115 arXiv:https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1801723115

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1801723115 2018

  13. [13]

    Childs and Nathan Wiebe

    Andrew M. Childs and Nathan Wiebe. 2012. Hamiltonian Simulation Using Linear Combinations of Unitary Operations. QIC12, 11&12 (Nov. 2012), 901–924. doi:10.26421/QIC12.11-12-1

    work page doi:10.26421/qic12.11-12-1 2012

  14. [14]

    Richard Cleve and Chunhao Wang. 2017. Efficient Quantum Algorithms for Simulating Lindblad Evolution. In44th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2017) (Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 80), Ioannis Chatzigiannakis, Piotr Indyk, Fabian Kuhn, and Anca Muscholl (Eds.). Schloss Dagstuhl – Leib...

    work page doi:10.4230/lipics.icalp.2017.17 2017

  15. [15]

    Delgado-Granados, Timothy J

    Luis H. Delgado-Granados, Timothy J. Krogmeier, LeeAnn M. Sager-Smith, Irma Avdic, Zixuan Hu, Manas Sajjan, Maryam Abbasi, Scott E. Smart, Prineha Narang, Sabre Kais, Anthony W. Schlimgen, Kade Head-Marsden, and David A. Mazziotti. 2025. Quantum Algorithms and Applications for Open Quantum Systems.Chemical Reviews125, 4 (Feb. 2025), 1823–1839. doi:10.1021...

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.4c00428 2025

  16. [16]

    2025.Cirq

    Cirq Developers. 2025.Cirq. Zenodo. doi:10.5281/ZENODO.4062499

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.4062499 2025

  17. [17]

    Giovanni Di Bartolomeo, Michele Vischi, Tommaso Feri, Angelo Bassi, and Sandro Donadi. 2024. Efficient Quantum Algorithm to Simulate Open Systems through a Single Environmental Qubit.Physical Review Research6, 4 (Dec. 2024), 043321. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.043321

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.6.043321 2024

  18. [18]

    Zhiyan Ding, Chi-Fang Chen, and Lin Lin. 2024. Single-Ancilla Ground State Preparation via Lindbladians.Physical Review Research6, 3 (Aug. 2024), 033147. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.033147

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.6.033147 2024

  19. [19]

    Zhiyan Ding, Bowen Li, and Lin Lin. 2025. Efficient Quantum Gibbs Samplers with Kubo–Martin–Schwinger Detailed Balance Condition.Communications in Mathematical Physics406, 3 (March 2025), 67. doi:10.1007/s00220-025-05235-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s00220-025-05235-3 2025

  20. [20]

    Zhiyan Ding, Xiantao Li, and Lin Lin. 2024. Simulating Open Quantum Systems Using Hamiltonian Simulations.PRX Quantum5, 2 (May 2024), 020332. doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.020332

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.020332 2024

  21. [21]

    Supriyo Dutta. 2025. Discrete-time open quantum walks for vertex ranking in graphs.Phys. Rev. E111 (Mar 2025), 034312. Issue 3. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.111.034312

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.111.034312 2025

  22. [22]

    Richard P. Feynman. 1982. Simulating Physics with Computers.International Journal of Theoretical Physics21, 6-7 (June 1982), 467–488. doi:10.1007/BF02650179

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02650179 1982

  23. [23]

    Fowler, Matteo Mariantoni, John M

    Austin G. Fowler, Matteo Mariantoni, John M. Martinis, and Andrew N. Cleland. 2012. Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation.Phys. Rev. A86 (Sep 2012), 032324. Issue 3. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.86.032324

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.86.032324 2012

  24. [24]

    Byeongseon Go, Hyukjoon Kwon, Siheon Park, Dhrumil Patel, and Mark M Wilde. 2025. Sample-Based Hamiltonian and Lindbladian Simulation: Non-Asymptotic Analysis of Sample Complexity.Quantum Science and Technology10, 4 (Oct. 2025), 045058. doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ae075b

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ae075b 2025

  25. [25]

    Vittorio Gorini, Andrzej Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan. 1976. Completely Positive Dynamical Semigroups ofN -Level Systems.J. Math. Phys.17, 5 (May 1976), 821–825. doi:10.1063/1.522979

    work page doi:10.1063/1.522979 1976

  26. [26]

    Wenhao He, Tongyang Li, Xiantao Li, Zecheng Li, Chunhao Wang, and Ke Wang. 2024. Efficient Optimal Control of Open Quantum Systems. InProceedings of the 19th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography (TQC 2024) (Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 310), Frédéric Magniez and Alex Bredariol G...

    work page doi:10.4230/lipics.tqc.2024.3 2024

  27. [27]

    Keli Huang and Jens Palsberg. 2024. Compiling Conditional Quantum Gates without Using Helper Qubits.Proc. ACM Program. Lang.8, PLDI, Article 206 (June 2024), 22 pages. doi:10.1145/3656436

    work page doi:10.1145/3656436 2024

  28. [28]

    Quantum computing with Qiskit

    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. 2024. Quantum computing with Qiskit. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2405.08810 arXiv:2405.08810 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.08810 2024

  29. [29]

    Hirsh Kamakari, Shi-Ning Sun, Mario Motta, and Austin J. Minnich. 2022. Digital Quantum Simulation of Open Quantum Systems Using Quantum Imaginary–Time Evolution.PRX Quantum3, 1 (Feb. 2022), 010320. doi:10.1103/ PRXQuantum.3.010320

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    Kastoryano and Fernando G

    Michael J. Kastoryano and Fernando G. S. L. Brandão. 2016. Quantum Gibbs Samplers: The Commuting Case. Communications in Mathematical Physics344, 3 (June 2016), 915–957. doi:10.1007/s00220-016-2641-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s00220-016-2641-8 2016

  31. [31]

    Kliesch, T

    M. Kliesch, T. Barthel, C. Gogolin, M. Kastoryano, and J. Eisert. 2011. Dissipative Quantum Church-Turing Theorem. Physical Review Letters107, 12 (Sept. 2011), 120501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.120501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.120501 2011

  32. [32]

    Neill Lambert, Eric Gigu‘ere, Paul Menczel, Boxi Li, Patrick Hopf, Gerardo Su’arez, Marc Gali, Jake Lishman, Rushiraj Gadhvi, Rochisha Agarwal, Asier Galicia, Nathan Shammah, Paul Nation, J. R. Johansson, Shahnawaz Ahmed, Simon Cross, Alexander Pitchford, and Franco Nori. 2026. QuTiP 5: The Quantum Toolbox in Python.Physics Reports1153 (2026), 1–62. doi:1...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2025.10.001 2026

  33. [33]

    David Lauvergnat, Sophie Blasco, Xavier Chapuisat, and André Nauts. 2007. A Simple and Efficient Evolution Operator for Time-Dependent Hamiltonians: The Taylor Expansion.The Journal of Chem- ical Physics126, 20 (May 2007), 204103. doi:10.1063/1.2735315 arXiv:https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.2735315/13119248/204103_1_online.pdf

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2735315 2007

  34. [34]

    Gushu Li, Anbang Wu, Yunong Shi, Ali Javadi-Abhari, Yufei Ding, and Yuan Xie. 2022. Paulihedral: A Generalized Block-Wise Compiler Optimization Framework for Quantum Simulation Kernels. InProceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems. ACM, Lausanne Switzerland, 554–569. doi:10...

    work page doi:10.1145/3503222.3507715 2022

  35. [35]

    Hao-En Li, Yongtao Zhan, and Lin Lin. 2025. Dissipative Ground State Preparation in Ab Initio Electronic Structure Theory.npj Quantum Information11, 1 (Nov. 2025), 183. doi:10.1038/s41534-025-01124-8 26 Qifan Huang, Minbo Gao, Li Zhou, and Mingsheng Ying

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-025-01124-8 2025

  36. [36]

    Liyi Li, Finn Voichick, Kesha Hietala, Yuxiang Peng, Xiaodi Wu, and Michael Hicks. 2022. Verified compilation of Quantum oracles.Proc. ACM Program. Lang.6, OOPSLA2, Article 146 (Oct. 2022), 27 pages. doi:10.1145/3563309

    work page doi:10.1145/3563309 2022

  37. [37]

    Xiantao Li and Chunhao Wang. 2023. Simulating Markovian Open Quantum Systems Using Higher-Order Series Expansion. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2212.02051 arXiv:2212.02051 [quant-ph]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.02051 2023

  38. [38]

    Xiantao Li and Chunhao Wang. 2023. Succinct Description and Efficient Simulation of Non-Markovian Open Quantum Systems.Communications in Mathematical Physics401, 1 (July 2023), 147–183. doi:10.1007/s00220-023-04638-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s00220-023-04638-4 2023

  39. [39]

    Communications in Mathematical Physics 48(2), 119–130 (1976)

    G. Lindblad. 1976. On the Generators of Quantum Dynamical Semigroups.Communications in Mathematical Physics 48, 2 (June 1976), 119–130. doi:10.1007/BF01608499

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01608499 1976

  40. [40]

    Seth Lloyd. 1996. Universal Quantum Simulators.Science273, 5278 (1996), 1073–1078. doi:10.1126/science.273.5278.1073 arXiv:https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.273.5278.1073

    work page doi:10.1126/science.273.5278.1073 1996

  41. [41]

    Michael Miller, Dmitri Maslov, and Gerhard W

    D. Michael Miller, Dmitri Maslov, and Gerhard W. Dueck. 2003. A transformation based algorithm for reversible logic synthesis. InProceedings of the 40th Annual Design Automation Conference(Anaheim, CA, USA)(DAC ’03). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 318–323. doi:10.1145/775832.775915

    work page doi:10.1145/775832.775915 2003

  42. [42]

    Nielsen and I.L

    M.A. Nielsen and I.L. Chuang. 2010.Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press

    work page 2010

  43. [43]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. 2010.Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511976667

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511976667 2010

  44. [44]

    Dhrumil Patel and Mark M. Wilde. 2023. Wave Matrix Lindbladization I: Quantum Programs for Simulating Markovian Dynamics.Open Systems & Information Dynamics30, 02 (June 2023), 2350010. doi:10.1142/S1230161223500105

    work page doi:10.1142/s1230161223500105 2023

  45. [45]

    Dhrumil Patel and Mark M. Wilde. 2023. Wave Matrix Lindbladization II: General Lindbladians, Linear Combinations, and Polynomials.Open Systems & Information Dynamics30, 03 (Sept. 2023), 2350014. doi:10.1142/S1230161223500142

    work page doi:10.1142/s1230161223500142 2023

  46. [46]

    Sirui Peng, Xiaoming Sun, Qi Zhao, and Hongyi Zhou. 2025. Quantum-Trajectory-Inspired Lindbladian Simulation. PRX Quantum6, 3 (Sept. 2025), 030358. doi:10.1103/ssrs-8x32

    work page doi:10.1103/ssrs-8x32 2025

  47. [47]

    Yuxiang Peng, Jacob Young, Pengyu Liu, and Xiaodi Wu. 2024. SimuQ: A Framework for Programming Quantum Hamiltonian Simulation with Analog Compilation.Proc. ACM Program. Lang.8, POPL (Jan. 2024), 2425–2455. doi:10. 1145/3632923

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Matthew Pocrnic, Dvira Segal, and Nathan Wiebe. 2025. Quantum Simulation of Lindbladian Dynamics via Repeated Interactions. arXiv:2312.05371 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Monika Rani, Supriyo Dutta, and Subhashish Banerjee. 2024. Non-Markovianity in discrete-time open quantum random walk on arbitrary graphs.Quantum Information Processing23, 12 (Dec. 2024), 406. doi:10.1007/s11128-024-04616-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11128-024-04616-2 2024

  50. [50]

    Schlimgen, Kade Head-Marsden, LeeAnn M

    Anthony W. Schlimgen, Kade Head-Marsden, LeeAnn M. Sager, Prineha Narang, and David A. Mazziotti. 2021. Quantum Simulation of Open Quantum Systems Using a Unitary Decomposition of Operators.Physical Review Letters 127, 27 (Dec. 2021), 270503. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.270503

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.270503 2021

  51. [51]

    Schlimgen, Kade Head-Marsden, LeeAnn M

    Anthony W. Schlimgen, Kade Head-Marsden, LeeAnn M. Sager-Smith, Prineha Narang, and David A. Mazziotti. 2022. Quantum Simulation of Open Quantum Systems Using Density-Matrix Purification. arXiv:2207.07112 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    Bruno Schmitt and Giovanni De Micheli. 2022. tweedledum: A Compiler Companion for Quantum Computing. In2022 Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference and Exhibition (DATE). 7–12. doi:10.23919/DATE54114.2022.9774510

    work page doi:10.23919/date54114.2022.9774510 2022

  53. [53]

    Zhong-Xia Shang, Naixu Guo, Dong An, and Qi Zhao. 2025. Designing a Nearly Optimal Quantum Algorithm for Linear Differential Equations via Lindbladians.Physical Review Letters135, 12 (Sept. 2025), 120604. doi:10.1103/cvl9-97qg

    work page doi:10.1103/cvl9-97qg 2025

  54. [54]

    Ritvik Sharma and Sara Achour. 2025. Optimizing Ancilla-Based Quantum Circuits with SPARE.Proc. ACM Program. Lang.9, PLDI, Article 154 (June 2025), 25 pages. doi:10.1145/3729253

    work page doi:10.1145/3729253 2025

  55. [55]

    Seyon Sivarajah, Silas Dilkes, Alexander Cowtan, Will Simmons, Alec Edgington, and Ross Duncan. 2020. t|ket〉: a retargetable compiler for NISQ devices.Quantum Science and Technology6, 1 (nov 2020), 014003. doi:10.1088/2058- 9565/ab8e92

    work page doi:10.1088/2058- 2020

  56. [56]

    Kristan Temme and Pawel Wocjan. 2025. Quantized Markov Chain Couplings that Prepare Qsamples.Quantum9 (Dec. 2025), 1951. doi:10.22331/q-2025-12-18-1951

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2025-12-18-1951 2025

  57. [57]

    Anbang Wu, Liqiang Lu, Jianwei Yin, Jingwen Leng, and Minyi Guo. 2026. CLINE: Improving Control Flow Compilation of Quantum Programs with Control Line Encoding. In2026 IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA). 1–13. doi:10.1109/HPCA68181.2026.11408609

    work page doi:10.1109/hpca68181.2026.11408609 2026

  58. [58]

    Amanda Xu, Abtin Molavi, Lauren Pick, Swamit Tannu, and Aws Albarghouthi. 2023. Synthesizing Quantum-Circuit Optimizers.Proc. ACM Program. Lang.7, PLDI, Article 140 (June 2023), 25 pages. doi:10.1145/3591254

    work page doi:10.1145/3591254 2023

  59. [59]

    Amanda Xu, Abtin Molavi, Swamit Tannu, and Aws Albarghouthi. 2025. Optimizing Quantum Circuits, Fast and Slow. InProceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Volume 1(Rotterdam, Netherlands)(ASPLOS ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 777–793. doi:10...

    work page doi:10.1145/3669940.3707240 2025

  60. [60]

    Acar, and Zhihao Jia

    Mingkuan Xu, Zikun Li, Oded Padon, Sina Lin, Jessica Pointing, Auguste Hirth, Henry Ma, Jens Palsberg, Alex Aiken, Umut A. Acar, and Zhihao Jia. 2022. Quartz: superoptimization of Quantum circuits. InProceedings of the 43rd ACM A Compilation Framework for Quantum Simulation of Non-unitary Dynamics 27 SIGPLAN International Conference on Programming Languag...

    work page doi:10.1145/3519939.3523433 2022

  61. [61]

    Yingte Xu, Gilles Barthe, and Li Zhou. 2025. Automating Equational Proofs in Dirac Notation.Proc. ACM Program. Lang.9, POPL, Article 42 (Jan. 2025), 33 pages. doi:10.1145/3704878

    work page doi:10.1145/3704878 2025

  62. [62]

    Charles Yuan. 2025. Cobble: Compiling Block Encodings for Quantum Computational Linear Algebra. arXiv:2511.01736 [cs.PL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.01736

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Charles Yuan and Michael Carbin. 2024. The T-Complexity Costs of Error Correction for Control Flow in Quantum Computation.Proc. ACM Program. Lang.8, PLDI (June 2024), 492–517. doi:10.1145/3656397 arXiv:2311.12772 [cs]

    work page doi:10.1145/3656397 2024

  64. [64]

    Yongtao Zhan, Zhiyan Ding, Jakob Huhn, Johnnie Gray, John Preskill, Garnet Kin-Lic Chan, and Lin Lin. 2025. Rapid Quantum Ground State Preparation via Dissipative Dynamics. arXiv:2503.15827 [quant-ph] 28 Qifan Huang, Minbo Gao, Li Zhou, and Mingsheng Ying A Proof Details for Propositions in ChannelIR Proof of Theorem 4.2.It suffices to check each rewrite ...

    work page arXiv 2025