Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Optimization of Hybrid Quantum-Classical Algorithms

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 This paper claims that hybrid quantum-classical Quil programs can be statically optimized by seven compiler routines evaluated with three new metrics, cutting iterative phase estimation wall time by 22 percent and magic state distillation…

desk verdict The paper's headline IPE improvement is measured on a Quil program the authors admit is invalid, which makes the central quantitative claim untrustworthy even though the overall direction is sensible. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12853 v1 pith:YSVVERH3 submitted 2025-05-19 cs.DC

Lian Remme , Alexander Weinert , Andre Waschk This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DC
keywords hybridquantum-classicalcomputingQuilcompileroptimizationcontrol-flowanalysisdata-dependencegraphstaticmetricswalltimequantumcalculation
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

Quantum computers in real-time hybrid systems do classical work between quantum gates, and the paper argues that this hybrid code, not just the quantum circuit, can and should be optimized. It introduces seven optimization routines and three static metrics for Quil programs: wall time, quantum instruction number, and quantum calculation time. Applying random sequences of these routines to four real-time algorithms, the paper reports reductions in iterative phase estimation's wall time of 22 percent and reductions in magic state distillation's wall time and quantum calculation time of 14 percent. If the approach holds, compiler writers gain a concrete starting point for optimizing the classical-quantum boundary in near-real-time algorithms.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a control-flow and data-dependence analysis of Quil programs that splits code into device-labeled basic blocks and instruction-level dependence graphs, cutting the graph at every conditional jump to avoid circular dependencies. On top of this sit two synchronization-aware transformations, instruction reordering and latest possible quantum execution, plus adapted classical passes: constant propagation, constant folding, live-variable analysis, and dead code elimination. The three metrics, wall time, quantum instruction number, and quantum calculation time, evaluate how well the two devices are kept busy and how long the quantum state must stay coherent.

What would settle it

Run the optimized IPE program on a Quil-compliant executor that rejects ADD of a BIT to a REAL: if the program fails to load, or if running the legal conditional-jump version under the same metrics yields no reduction in wall time, instruction count, or quantum calculation time, the central improvement claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a method: extend classical compiler analyses to a two-device execution model in which a CPU and QPU run in parallel and synchronize only at hybrid instructions, then evaluate programs by static metrics that count this parallelism. It claims to be the first work to optimize hybrid quantum programs and to propose metrics for doing so, and it demonstrates the method on four Quil algorithms. The reported improvements are modest and concentrated in the larger programs, while the two small programs show no gains, which the paper attributes to their low instruction counts.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that replacing Quil's conditional-jump construction with a direct ADD of a BIT to a REAL has the same logical effect on the IPE's phase parameter, despite being forbidden by Quil's semantics; if that equivalence fails, the reported IPE improvements are void.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hybrid program quality can be assessed without running hardware: the three static metrics give a reproducible ordering on candidate programs.
  • Instruction reordering and latest possible quantum execution can be composed with existing quantum-circuit optimizers, since they act on different instruction classes.
  • Programs with few instructions may resist optimization; the two small examples showed no gains, so benefits are likely concentrated in larger iterative algorithms.
  • The rule of splitting the data-dependence graph at conditional jumps makes dataflow analysis tractable for real-time loops, at the cost of treating loop bodies as separate regions.
  • A practical hybrid compiler can now be built by layering these passes on an existing Quil compiler rather than designing the optimizer from scratch.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the unit-time execution model is replaced with realistic gate latencies and communication costs, pass ordering will likely change; the paper's metrics would need per-instruction weights to remain predictive.
  • The illegal BIT-to-REAL addition suggests a concrete language extension, such as a conditional-add or typed coercion instruction, that would make the IPE optimization legal in Quil.
  • The random phase-ordering search is a baseline; a systematic or learned phase-ordering search could plausibly find larger gains on the same programs.
  • Because the largest reported gains come from the most instruction-heavy algorithm, scaling these passes to larger hybrid programs is a natural next test of the method.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a set of seven optimization routines and three static metrics (wall time, quantum instruction number, and quantum calculation time) for hybrid quantum-classical programs written in Quil. The routines adapt classical compiler passes (constant propagation, live-variable analysis, constant folding, dead code elimination) and add hybrid-specific passes (finding hybrid dependencies, instruction reordering, latest possible quantum execution). The authors implement these in a tool, apply them to four real-time hybrid algorithms (quantum teleportation, magic state distillation, repeat-until-success, and iterative phase estimation), and report metric improvements for magic state distillation and IPE, with no improvement for the other two.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper offers a useful starting point for hybrid quantum-classical compilation: it defines concrete metrics, adapts classical analyses to a heterogeneous setting, and provides an open-source implementation. The paper is honest about limitations of the execution model and about the fact that only two of four benchmarks improve. However, the main quantitative support for the headline claim is the IPE evaluation, and that evaluation is performed on a Quil program that the paper itself states is forbidden by Quil semantics. This makes the IPE improvements unvalidated against executable code. The magic state distillation improvement is not affected by this specific defect, but it is a weaker result than the IPE case. The metrics and optimization framework are clearly a proof of concept, and the paper should be judged as such.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.2 and Section 7, Tables 3–4] The IPE evaluation is load-bearing for the paper's central claim, but it is carried out on a program that is not valid Quil. Section 4.2 states that the executable IPE uses Listing 1.2 (JUMP-UNLESS plus ADD) because 'Quil's semantic does not allow adding a bit-value to a real value,' and that the version used for DDG creation and optimization is Listing 1.3 (ADD param_no_pi[0] lastMeasurement[0]), which the paper says 'Quil's semantic forbids.' All IPE results in Section 7 (wall time reduced by 22%, instruction number by 7.3%, QCT by 9.1%) are computed on Listing 1.3. This replacement is not a benign syntactic change: Listing 1.2 contains a conditional branch and hence, under the paper's own DDG construction (Section 4.2), yields multiple DDGs and imposes live-variable constraints at DDG boundaries, whereas Listing 1.3 is a straight-line program with a single DDG. The optimizer may therefore be exploiting the removal of control flow rather than improving the executable IPE. The authors need to either (a) re-run the optimization and metric evaluation on the valid Listing 1.2 code, or (b) prove a semantics-preserving, Quil-valid transformation from Listing 1.2 to Listing 1.3 and show that the reported metrics are invariant under it. Without this, the IPE improvements are not established.
  2. [Section 9 and Section 7, Table 3] The conclusion states that the operations 'demonstrated that these operations can indeed optimize programs based on our proposed metrics,' but Table 3 shows no improvements for two of the four evaluated programs (quantum teleportation and repeat-until-success), and the only algorithm with improvements in all three headline metrics is IPE, whose evaluation is invalid for the reason given above. The claim should be qualified to the specific programs that improve, and it should be supported by results for valid Quil code. Otherwise the abstract's statement that 'our optimizations improve programs according to our metrics' overstates what the evaluation actually shows.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.2, Listings 1.2 and 1.3] The text uses 'semantic' instead of 'semantics' in two places ('Quil's semantic does not allow' and 'Quil's semantic forbids this construction'). Please correct the wording.
  2. [Section 5.3, Eq. (1) and Figure 5] The text says 'the number of hybrid instruction after the last hybrid instruction nq after,' but the equation and context indicate that this should be the number of quantum instructions after the last hybrid instruction. Additionally, the statement that 'a reasonable program has no quantum instructions after the last hybrid instruction' is contradicted by the example in Figure 5, which has nq after = 1.
  3. [Section 5 and Section 7] Section 5 says 'The results are given in Section 6,' but the evaluation results appear in Section 7. Please correct the cross-reference.
  4. [Section 7, random optimization procedure] The text says 'we do this 500 times for each algorithm and apply 50 optimization operations every time,' then states 'Which means we did 25 random draws per optimization routine.' With four optimization routines, 25 draws each gives 100 total draws, not 500; please clarify the randomization procedure and how the 500 runs relate to the four routines.
  5. [Section 7, Table 3] The sentence 'The QIN has never been improved' is not reflected in Table 3, which omits the QIN row entirely. Please state explicitly in the table caption or text that QIN results are omitted because no improvement was observed.
  6. [Section 4, first paragraph] The sentence 'We will optimizie the analyzed Quil programs in Section 7' contains a typo: 'optimizie' should be 'optimize'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: the optimizations are evaluated empirically on author-defined metrics, and the admitted invalid-IPE substitution is a validity risk, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The three metrics (wall time, QIN, QCT, Sec. 5) are defined independently of the optimization routines: wall time is a makespan under a unit-time parallel execution model, QIN counts quantum and hybrid instructions per DDG, and QCT is Eq. (1) over hybrid-instruction intervals and quantum instruction counts. The seven optimization routines (Sec. 6) are adapted classical passes (constant propagation, live-variable analysis, constant folding, dead-code elimination) plus three hybrid-specific heuristics; none is defined by evaluating one of the metrics, and the heuristics only set objectives, e.g. 'latest possible quantum execution' aims to reduce QCT and 'instruction reordering' aims to reduce wall time. The evaluation in Sec. 7 measures metric values before and after randomized 50-pass optimization runs; because some algorithms (quantum teleportation, repeat-until-success) showed no improvement and IPE results varied across 500 runs (Table 4), the reported reductions are empirical outcomes rather than identities forced by the metric definitions. The only self-citation is the footnote 'based on the master thesis of the first author [1]', which is provenance, not load-bearing evidence. The paper's own admission that the analysed IPE uses Listing 1.3, a BIT-to-REAL ADD that 'Quil's semantic forbids' (Sec. 4.2), is a serious correctness and validity limitation for the IPE evaluation, but it is not a circular step: no metric or optimization is defined in terms of that substitution. Under the stated circularity criteria, no step reduces by construction or by self-citation to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not fit parameters to data or introduce physical entities. The load-bearing input is a set of modeling and equivalence assumptions: unit-time instruction execution, the HQCC hardware model, the no-communication theorem, the semantic equivalence of a modified IPE program, and the semantic-preservation of the adapted compiler passes.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Each instruction takes exactly one time unit and communication latency is zero.
    Defines all three metrics in Section 5. The authors acknowledge this is not realistic and depends on hardware.
  • domain assumption The HQCC architecture with a co-CPU and QPU is the execution model.
    Assumed in Section 3.2, reused from Fu et al. [11]. All optimization targets and metrics are defined relative to this model.
  • standard math The no-communication theorem justifies treating an entangled qubit as dead if it has no future use.
    Used in Section 6.1 for quantum live-variable analysis. The argument is sketchy and not formalized.
  • ad hoc to paper The modified IPE code (Listing 1.3) has the same logical effect as the original (Listing 1.2).
    The authors state Quil forbids adding a BIT to a REAL but claim the effect is the same, and use the modified code for optimization and evaluation.
  • ad hoc to paper The adapted classical analyses and transformations preserve program semantics when applied to Quil.
    Section 6 asserts the routines are optimizations but gives no correctness proofs; for the quantum extensions this is nontrivial.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimization of Hybrid Quantum-Classical Algorithms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YSVVERH3

@misc{pith2026250512853,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimization of Hybrid Quantum-Classical Algorithms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YSVVERH3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12853}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum computers do not run in isolation; rather, they are embedded in quantum-classical hybrid architectures. In these setups, a quantum processing unit communicates with a classical device in near-real time. To enable efficient hybrid computations, it is mandatory to optimize quantum-classical hybrid code. To the best of our knowledge, no previous work on the optimization of hybrid code nor on metrics for which to optimize such code exists. In this work, we take a step towards optimization of hybrid programs by introducing seven optimization routines and three metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of the optimization. We implement these routines for the hybrid quantum language Quil and show that our optimizations improve programs according to our metrics. This lays the foundation for new kinds of hybrid optimizers that enable real-time collaboration between quantum and classical devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.12853 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The refined HQCC model (from [11, Fig. 2]). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Creating basic blocks in the CFG from alternat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example for multiple DDGs originating from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An example of a Quil execution that has a wall [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An example of determining δtbetween, nq before and nq af ter from Quil code. The QCT is the sum of these three values. If the last DDG has no quantum instruction, it does not add to the QCT. The wall time of all other DDGs is simply added, as every DDG necessarily ends…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. GPU-Accelerated Host-Aware Dead-Measurement Detection in Hybrid Quantum--Classical Programs: Full Version

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Semantics-aware abstract interpretation of classical host code finds non-contributory measurements, enabling ~38% gate removal standalone and >30% after SOTA circuit optimizers, with GPU speedups via levelized SSA.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Optimization strategies for quantum com- puters in distributed systems,

    L. Remme, “Optimization strategies for quantum com- puters in distributed systems,” Master’s thesis, Heinrich Heine University D¨ usseldorf, 2 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    (2024) circuit — IBM Quantum Computing

    IBMQuantum. (2024) circuit — IBM Quantum Computing. [Online]. Available: https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/api/qiskit/circuit

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    (2025) Quantum circuits – pen- nylane 0.40.0 documentation

    Xanadu. (2025) Quantum circuits – pen- nylane 0.40.0 documentation. [Online]. Available: https://docs.pennylane.ai/en/stable/introduction/circuits.html

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    G. Q. AI. (2025) Circuits — Cirq — Google Quantum AI. [Online]. Available: https://quantumai.google/cirq/build/circuits

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Conventions for Quantum Pseudocode,

    E. Knill, “Conventions for Quantum Pseudocode,” Los Alamos National Lab. (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States), Tech. Rep., 06 1996. [Online]. Available: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/366453

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    Teleporting an Un- known Quantum State via Dual Classical and Einstein- Podolsky-Rosen Channels,

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Cr´ epeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, “Teleporting an Un- known Quantum State via Dual Classical and Einstein- Podolsky-Rosen Channels,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 70, pp. 1895–1899, 1993

    work page 1993

  7. [7]

    Advancing hybrid quantum–classical computation with real-time execution,

    T. Lubinski, C. Granade, A. Anderson, A. Geller, M. Roetteler, A. Petrenko, and B. Heim, “Advancing hybrid quantum–classical computation with real-time execution,” Frontiers in Physics, vol. 10, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Repeat-Until-Success: Non-deterministic decomposition of single-qubit uni- taries,

    A. Paetznick and K. M. Svore, “Repeat-Until-Success: Non-deterministic decomposition of single-qubit uni- taries,” Quantum Information & Computation , vol. 14, no. 15–16, pp. 1277–1301, Nov. 2014

    work page 2014

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Proto- Quipper with Dynamic Lifting,

    P. Fu, K. Kishida, N. J. Ross, and P. Selinger, “Proto- Quipper with Dynamic Lifting,” Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages , vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 309–334, Jan. 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Arbitrary accuracy iterative quantum phase estimation algorithm using a single ancillary qubit: A two-qubit benchmark,

    M. Dobˇ s´ ıˇ cek, G. Johansson, V. Shumeiko, and G. Wendin, “Arbitrary accuracy iterative quantum phase estimation algorithm using a single ancillary qubit: A two-qubit benchmark,” Physical Review A , vol. 76, 9 2007

    2007

  3. [11]

    Quingo: A Program- ming Framework for Heterogeneous Quantum-Classical Computing with NISQ Features,

    X. Fu, J. Yu, X. Su, H. Jiang, H. Wu, F. Cheng, X. Deng, J. Zhang, L. Jin, Y. Yang et al., “Quingo: A Program- ming Framework for Heterogeneous Quantum-Classical Computing with NISQ Features,”ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, vol. 2, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Using Shor’s algorithm on near term Quantum computers: a reduced version,

    M. Rossi, L. Asproni, D. Caputo, S. Rossi, A. Cusinato, R. Marini, A. Agosti, and M. Magagnini, “Using Shor’s algorithm on near term Quantum computers: a reduced version,” Quantum Machine Intelligence , vol. 4, no. 18, Jul. 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Circuit for Shor’s algorithm using 2n+ 3 qubits,

    S. Beauregard, “Circuit for Shor’s algorithm using 2n+ 3 qubits,” Quantum Information & Computation, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 175–185, Mar. 2003

    2003

  6. [14]

    Fault-Tolerant Postselected Quantum Com- putation: Schemes,

    E. Knill, “Fault-Tolerant Postselected Quantum Com- putation: Schemes,” arXiv preprint quant-ph/0402171 , 2004

    2004 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Universal quantum computa- tion with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas,

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, “Universal quantum computa- tion with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas,” Phys- ical Review A, vol. 71, 2005

    2005

  8. [16]

    Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation,

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, “Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation,” Physical Review A , vol. 86, 9 2012

    2012

  9. [17]

    Quantum Circuit Optimization: Current trends and future direction,

    K. Karuppasamy, V. Puram, S. Johnson, and J. P. Thomas, “Quantum Circuit Optimization: Current trends and future direction,” arXiv e-prints , p. arXiv:2408.08941, Aug. 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Quantum circuit optimization with deep reinforcement learning,

    T. F¨ osel, M. Yuezhen Niu, F. Marquardt, and L. Li, “Quantum circuit optimization with deep reinforcement learning,” arXiv e-prints , p. arXiv:2103.07585, Mar. 2021

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Quan- tum Circuit Optimization with AlphaTensor,

    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. , “Quan- tum Circuit Optimization with AlphaTensor,” arXiv e- prints, pp. arXiv–2402, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Quarl: A Larning-Based Quantum Circuit Optimizer,

    Z. Li, J. Peng, Y. Mei, S. Lin, Y. Wu, O. Padon, and Z. Jia, “Quarl: A Larning-Based Quantum Circuit Optimizer,” Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages, vol. 8, no. OOPSLA1, Apr. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3649831

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    A Practical Quantum Instruction Set Architecture,

    R. S. Smith, M. J. Curtis, and W. J. Zeng, “A Practical Quantum Instruction Set Architecture,” arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:1608.03355, Aug. 2016

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Optimising T-count is np-hard,

    J. van de Wetering and M. Amy, “Optimising T-count is np-hard,” arXiv e-prints, Sep. 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Optimization of lattice surgery is NP-hard,

    D. Herr, F. Nori, and S. J. Devitt, “Optimization of lattice surgery is NP-hard,” npj Quantum Information , vol. 3, no. 35, 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    Optimal compilation of parametrised quantum circuits,

    J. van de Wetering, R. Yeung, T. Laakkonen, and A. Kissinger, “Optimal compilation of parametrised quantum circuits,” arXiv e-prints, Jan. 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    An open-source, industrial-strength optimizing compiler for quantum programs,

    R. S. Smith, E. C. Peterson, M. G. Skilbeck, and E. J. Davis, “An open-source, industrial-strength optimizing compiler for quantum programs,” Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 5, no. 4, 7 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Automated optimization of large quantum circuits with continuous parameters,

    Y. Nam, N. J. Ross, Y. Su, A. M. Childs, and D. Maslov, “Automated optimization of large quantum circuits with continuous parameters,” npj Quantum Informa- tion, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 12, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Quantum circuit optimization using quantum kar- naugh map,

    J.-H. Bae, P. M. Alsing, D. Ahn, and W. A. Miller, “Quantum circuit optimization using quantum kar- naugh map,” Scientific reports, vol. 10, no. 15651, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    The map method for synthesis of com- binational logic circuits,

    M. Karnaugh, “The map method for synthesis of com- binational logic circuits,” Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, Part I: Communication and Electronics, vol. 72, no. 5, pp. 593–599, 1953

    1953

  21. [29]

    Opti- mizing Quantum Circuits Using Algebraic Expressions,

    V. Puram, K. Karuppasamy, and J. P. Thomas, “Opti- mizing Quantum Circuits Using Algebraic Expressions,” in Computational Science – ICCS 2024 . Springer Na- ture Switzerland, 2024, pp. 268–276

    2024

  22. [30]

    Reducing the CNOT Count for Clif- ford+T Circuits on NISQ Architectures,

    V. Gheorghiu, J. Huang, S. M. Li, M. Mosca, and P. Mukhopadhyay, “Reducing the CNOT Count for Clif- ford+T Circuits on NISQ Architectures,” IEEE Trans- actions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Cir- cuits and Systems , vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1873–1884, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Optimizing zx-diagrams with deep reinforcement learning,

    M. N¨ agele and F. Marquardt, “Optimizing zx-diagrams with deep reinforcement learning,” Machine Learning: Science and Technology, vol. 5, no. 3, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Interacting Quantum Ob- servables,

    B. Coecke and R. Duncan, “Interacting Quantum Ob- servables,” inProceedings of the 35th international collo- quium on Automata, Languages and Programming, Part II, 2008, pp. 298–310

    2008

  25. [33]

    Compiler Optimization for Quantum Computing Using Reinforce- ment Learning,

    N. Quetschlich, L. Burgholzer, and R. Wille, “Compiler Optimization for Quantum Computing Using Reinforce- ment Learning,” in 2023 60th ACM/IEEE Design Au- tomation Conference (DAC), 2023, pp. 1–6

    2023

  26. [34]

    Qcir: Pattern Matching Based Universal Quantum Cir- cuit Rewriting Framework,

    M. Chen, Y. Zhang, Y. Li, Z. Wang, J. Li, and X. Li, “Qcir: Pattern Matching Based Universal Quantum Cir- cuit Rewriting Framework,” in ICCAD ’22: Proceed- ings of the 41st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design, 2022, pp. 1–8

    2022

  27. [35]

    Exact and Practical Pattern Matching for Quantum Circuit Optimization,

    R. Iten, R. Moyard, T. Metger, D. Sutter, and S. Wo- erner, “Exact and Practical Pattern Matching for Quantum Circuit Optimization,” ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–41, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Gequpi: Quantum Program Improvement with Multi- Objective Genetic Programming,

    F. Gemeinhardt, S. Klikovits, and M. Wimmer, “Gequpi: Quantum Program Improvement with Multi- Objective Genetic Programming,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 219, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Genetic Algo- rithm Based Quantum Circuits Optimization for Quan- tum Computing Simulation,

    L. Wei, Z. Ma, Y. Cheng, and Q. Liu, “Genetic Algo- rithm Based Quantum Circuits Optimization for Quan- tum Computing Simulation,” in 2021 12th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems & Ap- plications (IISA). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–8

    2021

  30. [38]

    Quanto: Optimizing quantum cir- cuits with automatic generation of circuit identities,

    J. Pointing, O. Padon, Z. Jia, H. Ma, A. Hirth, J. Pals- berg, and A. Aiken, “Quanto: Optimizing quantum cir- cuits with automatic generation of circuit identities,” Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 9, no. 4, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Quartz: superoptimization of Quantum circuits,

    M. Xu, Z. Li, O. Padon, S. Lin, J. Pointing, A. Hirth, H. Ma, J. Palsberg, A. Aiken, U. A. Acar, and J. Zhi- hao, “Quartz: superoptimization of Quantum circuits,” in Proceedings of the 43rd ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Programming Language Design and Im- plementatio...

    2022

  32. [40]

    Pcoast: A Pauli-Based Quantum Cir- cuit Optimization Framework,

    J. Paykin, A. T. Schmitz, M. Ibrahim, X.-C. Wu, and A. Y. Matsuura, “Pcoast: A Pauli-Based Quantum Cir- cuit Optimization Framework,” in 2023 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Quantum Computing and Engi- neering (QCE), vol. 1. IEEE, 2023, pp. 715–726

    2023

  33. [41]

    A Verified Optimizer for Quantum Circuits,

    K. Hietala, R. Rand, S.-H. Hung, X. Wu, and M. Hicks, “A Verified Optimizer for Quantum Circuits,” Proceed- ings of the ACM on Programming Languages , vol. 5, Jan. 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    (2024, Sep.) The coq proof assistant

    The Coq Development Team. (2024, Sep.) The coq proof assistant. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11551307

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    Qdmi - quantum device management interface: Hardware-software interface for the munich quantum software stack,

    R. Wille, L. Schmid, Y. Stade, J. Echavarria, M. Schulz, L. Schulz, and L. Burgholzer, “Qdmi - quantum device management interface: Hardware-software interface for the munich quantum software stack,” in QCE, vol. 02, 2024, pp. 573–574

    2024

  36. [44]

    From designing quantum processors to large-scale quantum computing systems,

    C. G. Almudever, R. Wille, F. Sebastiano, N. Haider, and E. Alarcon, “From designing quantum processors to large-scale quantum computing systems,” in DATE, 2024, pp. 1–10

    2024

  37. [45]

    A software platform to support dis- aggregated quantum accelerators,

    E. Kaya, J. Echavarria, M. N. Farooqi, A. Swierkowska, P. Hopf, B. Mete, L. Burgholzer, R. Wille, L. Schulz, and M. Schulz, “A software platform to support dis- aggregated quantum accelerators,” in SC24-W: Work- shops of the International Conference for High Perfor- mance Comp...

    2024

  38. [46]

    Quantum software ecosystem design,

    A. Basermann, M. Epping, B. Fauseweh, M. Felderer, E. Lobe, M. R¨ ohrig-Z¨ ollner, G. Schmiedinghoff, P. K. Schuhmacher, Y. Setyawati, and A. Weinert, “Quantum software ecosystem design,” in Software Engineering 2025 Companion Proceedings, Fachtagung des GI- Fachbereichs Softw...

    2025 doi

  39. [47]

    One flag to rule them all? on the quest for compiler optimizations to improve fault toler- ance,

    R. Thunig, M. Johannfunke, T. Wang, and H. Schirmeier, “One flag to rule them all? on the quest for compiler optimizations to improve fault toler- ance,” in 2024 19th European Dependable Computing Conference (EDCC). IEEE, 2024, pp. 33–40

    2024

  40. [48]

    Enhanc- ing compiler optimization with reinforcement learning and monte carlo tree search,

    J. Liu, J. Ren, J. Xie, J. Fang, and T. Wang, “Enhanc- ing compiler optimization with reinforcement learning and monte carlo tree search,” in Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, ser. SEKE2024, vol. 2024. KSI Resea...

    2024

  41. [49]

    Selecting the best compiler optimization by adopting natural language processing,

    H. Ahmed, M. Fahim Ul Haque, H. Raza Khan, G. Nadeem, K. Arshad, K. Assaleh, and P. Cesar Santos, “Selecting the best compiler optimization by adopting natural language processing,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 121 700–121 711, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    A Survey on Compiler Autotuning using Machine Learning,

    A. H. Ashouri, W. Killian, J. Cavazos, G. Palermo, and C. Silvano, “A Survey on Compiler Autotuning using Machine Learning,” ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) , vol. 51, no. 96, pp. 1–42, 9 2018

    2018

  43. [51]

    Compiler optimization-space explo- ration,

    S. Triantafyllis, M. Vachharajani, N. Vachharajani, and D. I. August, “Compiler optimization-space explo- ration,” in International Symposium on Code Genera- tion and Optimization, 2003. CGO 2003. IEEE, 3 2003, pp. 204–215

    2003

  44. [52]

    A. V. Aho, M. S. Lam, R. Sethi, and J. D. Ullman, Compilers: Principles, Techniques and Tools , 2nd ed. Pearson Education, 2007

    2007

  45. [53]

    (2019, Jan.) pyQuil Doc- umentation Release 2.3.0

    Rigetti Computing. (2019, Jan.) pyQuil Doc- umentation Release 2.3.0. [Online]. Available: https://readthedocs.org/projects/pyquil/downloads/pdf/v2.3.0/

    2019

  46. [54]

    (2024) qvm: A High-Performance Quantum Virtual Machine

    quil lang. (2024) qvm: A High-Performance Quantum Virtual Machine. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/quil-lang/qvm

    2024

  47. [55]

    (1995) x86 Assem- bly Language Reference Manual

    Sun Microsystems. (1995) x86 Assem- bly Language Reference Manual. [Online]. Available: https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19641-01/802- 1948/802-1948.pdf

    1995

  48. [56]

    Smith; Rigetti & Co

    Robert S. Smith; Rigetti & Co. Inc.; and contributors. (2021) Quil Specification. Version 2021.1. [Online]. Available: https://quil-lang.github.io/

    2021

  49. [57]

    Github - LiRem101/parser-analyser: Analysa- tion and optimization of Quil programs

    lirem101. Github - LiRem101/parser-analyser: Analysa- tion and optimization of Quil programs. [Online]. Avail- able: https://github.com/LiRem101/parser-analyser

  50. [58]

    Control flow analysis,

    F. E. Allen, “Control flow analysis,” ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 5, pp. 1––19, Jul. 1970. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/390013.808479

    1970

  51. [59]

    K. D. Cooper and L. Torczon, Engineering a Compiler . Morgan Kaufmann, 2006

    2006

  52. [60]

    Quantum Information and Relativity Theory,

    A. Peres and D. R. Terno, “Quantum Information and Relativity Theory,” Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 76, pp. 93–123, 1 2004

    2004

  53. [61]

    Theory of fault-tolerant quantum com- putation,

    D. Gottesman, “Theory of fault-tolerant quantum com- putation,” Physical Review A , vol. 57, pp. 127–137, 1 1998

    1998

  54. [62]

    A single quantum cannot be cloned,

    W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek, “A single quantum cannot be cloned,” Nature, vol. 299, pp. 802–803, 1982

    1982

  55. [63]

    Communication by EPR de- vices,

    D. Dieks, “Communication by EPR de- vices,” Physics Letters A , vol. 92, no. 6, pp. 271–272, 1982. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0375960182900846

    1982

  56. [64]

    (2024) ibm fez

    IBMQuantum. (2024) ibm fez. [Online]. Available: https://quantum.ibm.com/services/resources?system=ibm fez

    2024

  57. [65]

    (2024) ibm marrakesh

    ——. (2024) ibm marrakesh. [Online]. Available: https://quantum.ibm.com/services/resources?system=ibm marrakesh

    2024

  58. [66]

    (2024) ibm torino

    ——. (2024) ibm torino. [Online]. Available: https://quantum.ibm.com/services/resources?system=ibm torino

    2024

  59. [67]

    I. IonQ. (2024) Ionq Aria: Practical Performance. [Online]. Available: https://ionq.com/resources/ionq- aria-practical-performance

    2024

Pith tools

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