Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

SimShadow enables cheap, live noise fingerprinting for quantum simulators and exposes large systematic Qiskit-Cirq differences.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 14:54 UTC pith:5PY3NSRO

load-bearing objection Promising fingerprinting idea, but the abstract claims an MQTBENCH correlation the body never reports, and the classification/parameter-estimation rules are calibrated on the very configurations they validate. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.18667 v3 pith:5PY3NSRO submitted 2025-12-21 quant-ph cs.SE

Toward Live Noise Fingerprinting in Quantum Software Engineering

Avner Bensoussan , Elena Chachkarova , Karine Even-Mendoza , Sophie Fortz , Vasileios Klimis , Mohammad Reza Mousavi This is my paper
classification quant-ph cs.SE MSC 81P68
keywords noise fingerprintingclassical shadow tomographyquantum software engineeringquantum noise modelscross-platform discrepancyQiskitCirqFrobenius distance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

SimShadow is a new pipeline that produces a noise fingerprint for a quantum simulator: a matrix of deviations between observed outcomes and ideal quantum expectations over a grid of reference states and Pauli observables. The paper argues that this fingerprint can be generated on demand, updated frequently, and at a fraction of the cost of full process tomography. Using nine reference states and fifteen observables on two widely used simulators with matched, hardware-informed noise profiles, it reports Frobenius distances between platform fingerprints of 6.60 to 7.39, about ten times the expected shot-noise floor, indicating systematic implementation differences despite identical configurations. The paper frames this as the first step toward a research agenda for noise-aware quantum software engineering, including portability testing, debugging, and regression detection.

Core claim

SimShadow's central claim is that a state–observable grid of deviations — the fingerprint matrix F — carries enough structure to identify noise type, estimate noise strength, and expose cross-platform implementation differences. In the experiments, fingerprints for depolarizing, amplitude damping, and phase damping channels are visually and statistically distinct; the Frobenius distance between the two platforms' fingerprints under matched noise exceeds the shot-noise baseline by an order of magnitude; and the protocol uses roughly 864,000 measurements for an 8-qubit system versus over 2.1×10^12 for process tomography, a 2.5-million-fold reduction. The paper also reports that larger fingerpr

What carries the argument

The fingerprint matrix F, with rows for nine reference states (computational, superposition, and one Bell state) and columns for fifteen single- and two-qubit Pauli observables; each entry is the observed expectation minus the ideal expectation. It is built by preparing each reference state, measuring each observable directly in its eigenbasis with 500 shots — a shadow-inspired simplification that avoids full density-matrix reconstruction — and then applying classification rules over six statistical features of F to identify noise type and estimate parameters. The Frobenius distance between two platforms' F matrices is the scalar used to quantify cross-platform difference.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the hand-picked grid of nine reference states and fifteen Pauli observables is representative enough to ensure the fingerprint has no blind spots for arbitrary quantum programs; if that grid misses an important noise mode, fingerprint distances will not predict how real programs behave.

What would settle it

Construct two two-qubit noise channels that produce zero deviation on all fifteen Pauli observables for all nine reference states (e.g., a correlated error engineered to be orthogonal to the grid), and show that they yield identical fingerprints yet different benchmark outputs — that would refute the no-blind-spots assumption. A second test is to compare SimShadow's Frobenius-distance ranking of many noise channels against the ranking from full process tomography.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Noise-model differences between simulators can be detected and quantified at a cost low enough to run in CI/CD pipelines, making noise regression a standard automated test.
  • The protocol scales to systems where full process tomography is impossible, offering a practical characterisation tool for validating quantum software.
  • Fingerprint-derived noise type and strength could guide noise-aware compilation and error mitigation without needing vendor model details or fresh calibration data.
  • If the reported correlation with program output divergence holds, fingerprint distances become a cheap proxy for predicting cross-platform portability problems before running full test suites.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: The nine-state, fifteen-observable grid is an empirical choice, not a proven complete set; fingerprint distances could miss noise modes that affect programs involving other types of states, so an optimal grid is a natural next question.
  • Editorial: Because the protocol measures a fixed observable set directly in its eigenbasis, it is a specialised form of shadow estimation; randomising the measurement bases would remove the need to know which observables matter in advance.
  • Editorial: Running the same fingerprinting pipeline periodically on real hardware could turn calibration drift into a live, observable state variable that software tools consume, extending the idea well beyond simulators.
  • Editorial: The 69-program correlation is reported only in the abstract; a fuller regression study over diverse noise models would test whether Frobenius distance reliably predicts output divergence, and might suggest a minimum fingerprint distance that guarantees portability.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces SimShadow, a noise-fingerprinting pipeline for quantum software engineering (QSE). The protocol prepares a fixed set of nine reference states (four computational, four superposition, one Bell state), measures fifteen Pauli observables per state, and constructs a deviation matrix F whose entries compare observed and ideal expectation values. The paper reports on experiments with Qiskit and Cirq under depolarizing, amplitude damping, and phase damping noise: it claims channel-specific fingerprint structure, systematic cross-platform differences quantified by Frobenius distances (6.60–7.39), a large scaling advantage over process tomography (2.5×10^6 for 8 qubits), and parameter estimation within 3% for phase damping. The abstract additionally claims that on 69 MQTBENCH programs, larger fingerprint differences correlate with output-distribution divergences, but that MQTBENCH experiment does not appear anywhere in the body of the manuscript.

Significance. If validated, the proposed approach would be a genuinely useful QSE artefact: a lightweight, live, descriptive noise signature that can be regenerated cheaply and used for cross-platform validation, debugging, and regression testing. The paper's strengths include a clearly specified protocol, an openly available prototype and dataset, explicit statements of calibration limitations in §2.2, and a plausible scaling argument against full process tomography. However, the current evidence is preliminary and partly in-sample: the classification and parameter-estimation rules are calibrated on the same three noise configurations later used for validation, and the only claim that connects fingerprints to actual program behaviour (the MQTBENCH correlation) is missing from the body. The underlying idea is worth pursuing, but the manuscript as written does not yet establish the QSE-relevant payoff.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; §3.1–§3.2] The abstract states: 'On 69 MQTBENCH programs, larger fingerprint differences correlate with output distributions divergences...' This is the central bridge from Frobenius distances to QSE-relevant program behaviour, yet no MQTBENCH experiment is reported in the body. Section 3.1 describes only 54 configurations (9 states × 3 noise types × 2 platforms) and §3.2 reports fingerprint matrices, distances, and speeds. No MQTBENCH dataset, divergence metric, correlation coefficient, or methodology appears. Either add the missing experiment or remove/qualify the abstract claim; as written, the headline practical claim is unsupported.
  2. [§2.2 vs §3.1] The classification thresholds (sparsity > 0.12, |mean| > 0.13, tau = 0.001) and parameter-estimation constants (Cdep ≈ 2.14, Camp ≈ 1.44, Cphase ≈ 0.094) are explicitly 'calibrated for our experimental parameters (0.05, 0.10, 0.08)', and §3.1 evaluates exactly those three configurations. Consequently, the reported 'within 3% error for phase damping parameters' and the successful classification results are in-sample, not independent validations. This should be acknowledged clearly, or better, the evaluation should include noise parameters not used in calibration.
  3. [§3.2, 'Answers to EQ1 & EQ2'] The classification result is reported incompletely: the text says only 'correctly identifying phase damping on both platforms, and amplitude damping on Qiskit'. No statement is made about depolarizing noise classification, and there is no classification table or accuracy figure across repeated runs. EQ1 ('Can SimShadow correctly identify different noise types?') is therefore not fully answered. Please report the full classification outcomes, including any failures or ambiguities.
  4. [§2.2, step 3; §4] The 9-state/15-observable grid is described as chosen to 'ensure the fingerprint has no blind spots', but no evidence is provided that this grid is representative of noise modes that affect real quantum programs. Because the MQTBENCH correlation is absent from the body, the paper does not show that large Frobenius distances on this fixed grid translate into behavioural differences for arbitrary QSE-relevant programs. This is a load-bearing assumption for the portability/debugging claims; it needs either an explicit sensitivity analysis (varying states/observables) or the MQTBENCH experiment, plus a more cautious wording in §2.2.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1 vs §3.2] The efficiency gain is reported inconsistently: the introduction says 'up to 160,000× more efficient', while the abstract and §3.2 say '2.5×10^6' (Result 2: approximately 864,000 vs 2.1×10^12 measurements). Please reconcile these numbers and state the comparison basis.
  2. [§3.2] The shot-noise floor estimate (√135 × √2 × 1/√500 ≈ 0.74) overestimates the statistical uncertainty for Bernoulli measurement outcomes. For a binomial proportion, the standard deviation is at most 1/(2√N), not 1/√N, giving a floor closer to 0.37. The qualitative conclusion (distances 6–7 far exceed shot noise) is unaffected, but the formula should be corrected.
  3. [§3.2, Result 3] The 'within 3% error' claim for phase damping parameter estimation is not accompanied by any table, figure, or explicit comparison of estimated vs configured λ values. Please provide the actual numbers and, ideally, error bars over repeated runs.
  4. [§2.2, step 2] The protocol measures each observable directly in its eigenbasis rather than using randomized Pauli measurements. This is a sensible simplification for a fixed observable set, but the phrase 'shadow-inspired estimation' should be defined more precisely to avoid confusion with the standard classical-shadows estimator (e.g., median-of-means over random unitaries).
  5. [Throughout] The paper is described as a 'vision paper' or 'idea paper', but the abstract presents concrete empirical claims. Please add an explicit limitations paragraph distinguishing calibrated demonstrations from independent validation, and state which claims are intended as proof-of-concept.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Classification and parameter-estimation validations are calibrated on the same configurations they later report as predictions; the central fingerprint comparisons remain self-contained.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [§2.2 (Algorithmic Analysis, Parameter Estimation) and §3.2 Result 3 (EQ4)]
    "For depolarizing noise with probability p, we use p≈ |μF|/Cdep where Cdep ≈ 2.14(calibrated). For amplitude damping with rate γ, we use an ensemble: γ≈ 1/2(|μF|/Camp+var_pattern/0.001) where Camp≈1.44. For phase damping with rate λ, we use λ≈(1−s)·Cphase where Cphase≈0.094. These constants are calibrated for our parameter ranges; dynamic adaptation for different ranges is future work."

    The constants Cdep, Camp, and Cphase are calibrated on the only noise-parameter values used in the evaluation (0.05, 0.10, 0.08). Section 3.2 then presents the same configurations as evidence that fingerprints can estimate noise parameters 'within 3% error for phase damping parameters'. The reported accuracy measures agreement with the calibration targets, so it is a property of the fit, not an independent prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [§2.2 (Algorithmic Analysis, Channel Classification) and §3.2 Result 1 (EQ1)]
    "classification= phase_damping if s>0.12, amplitude_damping if |μF|>0.13, depolarizing otherwise. These thresholds are calibrated for our experimental parameters (0.05, 0.10, 0.08); automated calibration for different ranges is future work."

    The classification thresholds are chosen on the basis of the same three noise configurations used in the evaluation. The later claim that the fingerprints succeed in 'correctly identifying phase damping on both platforms, and amplitude damping on Qiskit' validates the classifier on its own training data, so the identifiability result is not an independent test of the fingerprints.

full rationale

The SimShadow fingerprint construction itself is not circular: F entries are measured deviations from analytically computed ideal expectations, and the cross-platform Frobenius distances and the ~0.74 shot-noise floor derive from counting statistics, so the EQ2/EQ3 results stand as self-contained empirical observations. No load-bearing self-citation chain appears; reference [22] (with overlapping authors) is used only as contextual QSE work. The circularity is confined to EQ1/EQ4: classification thresholds and estimation constants are calibrated on the very configurations (0.05/0.10/0.08) used for the reported 'identification' and 'within 3% error' results, so those two quantitative claims reduce to curve-fitting on the evaluation set. Separately, the abstract's assertion that 'on 69 MQTBENCH programs, larger fingerprint differences correlate with output distributions divergences' is absent from the body—no MQTBENCH dataset, divergence metric, or correlation is reported; this is a missing-evidence gap, not a circularity, and does not by itself raise the circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on design choices (state/observable selection, shot budget) and on a calibration set of three known noise configurations; no new physical entities are introduced. The most fragile input is the representativeness assumption for the 9×15 grid, since the fingerprint values change with the grid.

free parameters (4)
  • classification thresholds (sparsity>0.12, |mean|>0.13, tau=0.001) = 0.12, 0.13, 0.001
    Hand-calibrated to the three evaluated noise configurations (0.05, 0.10, 0.08); no out-of-sample validation is reported.
  • parameter estimation constants Cdep, Camp, Cphase = 2.14, 1.44, 0.094
    Calibrated constants mapping fingerprint statistics to noise strength; the claimed 3% phase-damping accuracy is a fit to the same configurations.
  • reference-state/observable grid (k=9, n=15) = 9 states, 15 observables
    Hand-selected to probe population, coherence, and correlated errors; the paper asserts no blind spots without proof, and fingerprint values depend materially on this grid.
  • shot budget per configuration = 500
    Chosen precision level; the statistical shot-noise floor (~0.74) is derived from it, and larger or smaller budgets change distinguishability.
axioms (4)
  • standard math Standard quantum measurement postulates (Born rule, Pauli expectation values)
    Invoked in §2.2 steps 1–2 to define ideal expectations and empirical estimates of observables.
  • domain assumption Qiskit and Cirq 'matched noise configurations' with equal parameter values are meaningfully comparable
    Used in §3.1–3.2 to interpret Frobenius distances as cross-platform implementation differences rather than artifacts of parameter mismatch.
  • domain assumption The fixed 9-state/15-observable grid has no blind spots for QSE-relevant noise
    Stated in §2.2 step 3 as critical, but no proof or coverage argument is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Calibrated thresholds and constants generalize to other configurations and platforms
    The paper explicitly says automated calibration for different ranges is future work (§2.2), yet the classification and parameter-estimation claims assume at least some generality.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 9309 in / 14041 out tokens · 137774 ms · 2026-08-03T14:54:42.398768+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Contemporary quantum computers are inherently noisy, posing significant challenges for the development and testing of quantum software. Simplified or outdated noise assumptions can lead to incorrect assessments of program correctness, obscure debugging, and hinder cross-platform portability, creating a critical quantum software development gap. Providing accurate, practical noise characterisation is challenging as traditional reconstruction methods scale exponentially and rapidly become outdated. In this vision paper, we address this gap via a novel classical shadow tomography-based pipeline, SIMSHADOW, enabling efficient, continuously updatable noise fingerprinting from empirical observations, suitable for integration into quantum software development workflows, including testing and validation. We prototyped the pipeline to investigate fingerprints' ability to capture structured, interpretable noise and cross-platform discrepancies affecting quantum programs' behaviour to support realistic testing and debugging in future tools. Our evaluation with Qiskit and Cirq under widely used hardware-informed profiles, IBM Boston and Quantinuum H2, shows fingerprints exhibit channel-specific structure and yield interpretable heatmaps. We observed systematic cross-platform discrepancies under matched noise configurations, quantified by large Frobenius distances at a fraction of full tomography cost. On 69 MQTBENCH programs, larger fingerprint differences correlate with output distributions divergences, highlighting threats for testing and cross-platform debugging tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.18667 by Avner Bensoussan, Elena Chachkarova, Karine Even-Mendoza, Mohammad Reza Mousavi, Sophie Fortz, Vasileios Klimis.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: SimShadow Framework Architecture: Standard￾ised reference states are run on a noisy simulator. A shadow￾tomography-inspired protocol is used to efficiently estimate prop￾erties of the output, which are then compared to ideal values to generate a unique noise fingerprint. periodically (e.g. every 24 hours). We advocate for a new paradigm centred on live, empirical, and descriptive noise fingerprinting, de￾s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (Result 1) Fingerprint Visualisation & Cross Plat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (Result 2) Scalability Advantage. Measurement re￾quirements for SimShadow vs traditional process tomography. 5. Algorithmic Analysis. The final fingerprint matrix 𝐹 is passed to our analysis algorithm, which performs two tasks: channel clas￾sification and parameter estimation. Channel Classification. We extract six statistical features from 𝐹 : (1) mean deviation 𝜇𝐹 = 1 𝑘𝑛 Í 𝑖,𝑗 𝐹𝑖,𝑗 , (2) standard deviati… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Backend-Aware Graph Learning for Denoising Outcome Distributions in Quantum Program Testing

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Q-BRIDGE, a graph-transformer denoiser conditioned on backend features, reconstructs ideal outcome distributions from noisy quantum executions and markedly improves oracle-based bug detection.

  2. Shadow-Based Noise Fingerprinting of Simulated Quantum Noise Models

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Physics-informed classical-shadow features from fixed 3-qubit probes let a random forest identify ten simulated quantum noise channels at 0.84 test accuracy.

  3. Shadow-Based Noise Fingerprinting of Simulated Quantum Noise Models

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    A shadow-tomography pipeline with 279 engineered features classifies which of ten simulated quantum noise channels corrupted 3-qubit probe circuits at 84.26% test accuracy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Scott Aaronson. 2018. Shadow tomography of quantum states. InProceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing(Los Angeles, CA, USA)(STOC 2018). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 325–338. doi:10.1145/3188745. 3188802

    doi:10.1145/3188745 2018

  2. [2]

    Rothblum

    Scott Aaronson and Guy N. Rothblum. 2019. Gentle measurement of quantum states and differential privacy. InProceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing(Phoenix, AZ, USA)(STOC 2019). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 322–333. doi:10.1145/3313276.3316378

    arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    Fabrice Bellard. 2005. QEMU, a fast and portable dynamic translator. InProceed- ings of the Annual Conference on USENIX Annual Technical Conference(Anaheim, CA)(ATEC ’05). USENIX Association, USA, 41

    2005

  4. [4]

    Kottmann, Tim Menke, Wai-Keong Mok, Sukin Sim, Leong-Chuan Kwek, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik

    Kishor Bharti, Alba Cervera-Lierta, Thi Ha Kyaw, Tobias Haug, Sumner Alperin-Lea, Abhinav Anand, Matthias Degroote, Hermanni Heimonen, Jakob S. Kottmann, Tim Menke, Wai-Keong Mok, Sukin Sim, Leong-Chuan Kwek, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. 2022. Noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) algorithms. Rev. Mod. Phys.94 (Feb 2022), 015004. Issue 1. doi:10.1103/RevModPh...

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.94.015004 2022

  5. [5]

    Reinhardt, Ali Saidi, Arkaprava Basu, Joel Hestness, Derek R

    Nathan Binkert, Bradford Beckmann, Gabriel Black, Steven K. Reinhardt, Ali Saidi, Arkaprava Basu, Joel Hestness, Derek R. Hower, Tushar Krishna, Somayeh Sardashti, Rathijit Sen, Korey Sewell, Muhammad Shoaib, Nilay Vaish, Mark D. Hill, and David A. Wood. 2011. The gem5 Simulator.SIGARCH Comput. Archit. News39, 2 (aug 2011), 1–7. doi:10.1145/2024716.2024718

    arXiv 2011

  6. [6]

    Robin Blume-Kohout, John King Gamble, Erik Nielsen, Kenneth Rudinger, Jonathan Mizrahi, Kevin Fortier, and Peter Maunz. 2017. Demonstration of qubit operations below a rigorous fault tolerance threshold with gate set tomography. Nature Communications8, 1 (15 Feb 2017), 14485. doi:10.1038/ncomms14485

    doi:10.1038/ncomms14485 2017

  7. [8]

    Garcia, and Arthur Jaffe

    Kaifeng Bu, Dax Enshan Koh, Roy J. Garcia, and Arthur Jaffe. 2024. Classical shadows with Pauli-invariant unitary ensembles.npj Quantum Information10, 1 (08 Jan 2024), 6. doi:10.1038/s41534-023-00801-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-023-00801-w 2024

  8. [9]

    Isaac L Chuang and Michael A Nielsen. 1997. Prescription for experimental determination of the dynamics of a quantum black box.Journal of Modern Optics 44, 11-12 (1997), 2455–2467

    1997

  9. [10]

    Sornborger, and Patrick J

    Lukasz Cincio, Yiğit Subaşı, Andrew T. Sornborger, and Patrick J. Coles. 2024. Machine learning of noisy quantum hardware.npj Quantum Information10 (2024), 96. doi:10.1038/s41534-024-00955-1

    doi:10.1038/s41534-024-00955-1 2024

  10. [11]

    Cross, Lev S

    Andrew W. Cross, Lev S. Bishop, Sarah Sheldon, Paul D. Nation, and Jay M. Gambetta. 2019. Validating quantum computers using randomized model circuits. Phys. Rev. A100 (Sep 2019), 032328. Issue 3. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.100.032328

    doi:10.1103/physreva.100.032328 2019

  11. [12]

    Manuel De Stefano, Fabiano Pecorelli, Dario Di Nucci, Fabio Palomba, and Andrea De Lucia. 2024. The quantum frontier of software engineering: A systematic mapping study.Information and Software Technology175 (2024), 107525. doi:10. 1016/j.infsof.2024.107525

    arXiv 2024

  12. [13]

    2025.Cirq

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

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.4062499 2025

  13. [14]

    Golub and Charles F

    Gene H. Golub and Charles F. Van Loan. 1996.Matrix Computations(3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 55 pages

    1996

  14. [15]

    Google Quantum AI. 2025. Representing Noise. https://quantumai.google/cirq/ noise/representing_noise

    2025

  15. [16]

    Michael Heinrich, Felix Ullrich, and Christian Schmiegelow. 2024. Noise-aware simulation and benchmarking for NISQ devices.EPJ Quantum Technology11 (2024), 24. doi:10.1140/epjqt/s40507-024-00284-4

    work page doi:10.1140/epjqt/s40507-024-00284-4 2024

  16. [17]

    Shahin Honarvar, Mohammad Reza Mousavi, and Rajagopal Nagarajan. 2020. Property-based Testing of Quantum Programs in Q#. InProceedings of the IEEE/ACM 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering Workshops (Seoul, Republic of Korea)(ICSEW’20). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 430–435. doi:10.1145/3387940.3391459

    arXiv 2020

  17. [18]

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, and John Preskill. 2020. Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements.Nature Physics16, 10 (2020), 1050–1057

    2020

  18. [19]

    IBM Quantum. 2025. IBM Quantum Pricing at, e.g., $48 per minute. https: //www.ibm.com/quantum/pricing. Accessed: 2025-09-16

    2025

  19. [20]

    Accessed: 2025-09-16

    IBM Quantum. Accessed: 2025-09-16. Exact and noisy simulation with Qiskit Aer primitives. https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/docs/en/guides/simulate-with- qiskit-aer

    2025

  20. [21]

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

    Ali Javadi-Abhari, Matthew Treinish, Kevin Krsulich, Christopher J. Wood, Jake Lishman, Julien Gacon, Simon Martiel, Paul D. Nation, Lev S. Bishop, Andrew W. Cross, Blake R. Johnson, and Jay M. Gambetta. 2024. Quantum computing with Qiskit. arXiv:2405.08810 [quant-ph] doi:10.48550/arXiv.2405.08810

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.08810 2024

  21. [22]

    Vasileios Klimis, Avner Bensoussan, Elena Chachkarova, Karine Even-Mendoza, Sophie Fortz, and Connor Lenihan. 2025. Shaking Up Quantum Simulators with Fuzzing and Rigour.Proc. ACM Program. Lang.9, OOPSLA, Article 322 (13 Oct. 2025), 30 pages. doi:10.1145/3763100

    doi:10.1145/3763100 2025

  22. [23]

    Al- mudever, and Francisco García Herrero

    Handy Kurniawan, Laura Rodríguez-Soriano, Daniele Cuomo, Carmen G. Al- mudever, and Francisco García Herrero. 2024. On the Use of Calibration Data in Error-Aware Compilation Techniques for NISQ Devices. In2024 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Vol. 01. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 338–348. doi:10.1109/QCE60285.2024.00048

    arXiv 2024

  23. [24]

    Neilson Carlos Leite Ramalho, Higor Amario de Souza, and Marcos Lordello Chaim. 2025. Testing and Debugging Quantum Programs: The Road to 2030.ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.34, 5, Article 155 (May 2025), 46 pages. doi:10.1145/3715106

    doi:10.1145/3715106 2025

  24. [25]

    Easwar Magesan, Jay M Gambetta, and Joseph Emerson. 2011. Scalable and Robust Randomized Benchmarking of Quantum Processes.Physical Review Letters106, 18 (2011), 180504. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.180504

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.106.180504 2011

  25. [26]

    Stefan Raimund Maschek, Jürgen Schwitalla, Maja Franz, and Wolfgang Mauerer

  26. [27]

    Alexander J McCaskey, Eugene F Dumitrescu, Mengsu Chen, Dmitry Lyakh, and Travis S Humble. 2020. XACC: a system-level software infrastructure for heterogeneous quantum–classical computing.Quantum Science and Technology 5, 2 (2020), 024002. doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ab6bf6

    doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ab6bf6 2020

  27. [28]

    Giulia Meuli, Mathias Soeken, Martin Roetteler, and Thomas Häner. 2020. En- abling accuracy-aware Quantum compilers using symbolic resource estima- tion.Proc. ACM Program. Lang.4, OOPSLA, Article 130 (Nov. 2020), 26 pages. doi:10.1145/3428198

    work page doi:10.1145/3428198 2020

  28. [29]

    Microsoft Azure. 2025. Azure Quantum Pricing. https://learn.microsoft.com/en- us/azure/quantum/pricing. Accessed: 2025-09-16

    2025

  29. [30]

    Andriy Miranskyy, Lei Zhang, and Javad Doliskani. 2021. On Testing and De- bugging Quantum Software. arXiv:2103.09172 [cs.SE] https://arxiv.org/abs/2103. 09172

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [31]

    Asmar Muqeet, Shaukat Ali, and Paolo Arcaini. 2024. Approximating stochastic quantum noise through genetic programming. InInternational Symposium on Search Based Software Engineering. Springer, Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 56–62

    2024

  31. [32]

    Asmar Muqeet, Tao Yue, Shaukat Ali, and Paolo Arcaini. 2024. Mitigating Noise in Quantum Software Testing Using Machine Learning.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering50, 11 (2024), 2947–2961. doi:10.1109/TSE.2024.3462974

    arXiv 2024

  32. [33]

    Baker, Ali Javadi-Abhari, Frederic T

    Prakash Murali, Jonathan M. Baker, Ali Javadi-Abhari, Frederic T. Chong, and Margaret Martonosi. 2019. Noise-Adaptive Compiler Mappings for Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum Computers. InProceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems(Providence, RI, USA)(ASPLOS ’19). ACM, N...

    arXiv 2019

  33. [34]

    Juan Manuel Murillo, Jose Garcia-Alonso, Enrique Moguel, Johanna Barzen, Frank Leymann, Shaukat Ali, Tao Yue, Paolo Arcaini, Ricardo Pérez-Castillo, Ignacio García-Rodríguez de Guzmán, Mario Piattini, Antonio Ruiz-Cortés, Antonio Brogi, Jianjun Zhao, Andriy Miranskyy, and Manuel Wimmer. 2025. Quantum Software Engineering: Roadmap and Challenges Ahead.ACM ...

    doi:10.1145/3712002 2025

  34. [35]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. 2010.Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (10th Anniversary edition). Cambridge University Press, UK

    2010

  35. [36]

    Zhonghao Pan, Yang Feng, Zhiyuan Li, Yunxin Liu, and Yuanchun Li. 2023. Understanding the Impact of Quantum Noise on Quantum Programs. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER)(Taipa, Macao). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 426–437. doi:10.1109/ SANER56733.2023.00047

    arXiv 2023

  36. [37]

    Piskor, M

    T. Piskor, M. Schöndorf, M. Bauer, D. Smith, T. Ayral, S. Pogorzalek, A. Auer, and M. Papič. 2025. Simulation and Benchmarking of Real Quantum Hardware. arXiv:2508.04483 [quant-ph] https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.04483 ..., ... Bensoussan, Chachkarova, Even-Mendoza, Fortz, Klimis

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [38]

    Yongsoo Sung, Daniel Hangleiter, and Jens Eisert. 2023. Characterizing the effects of noise on quantum algorithms with classical shadows.Physical Review Research 5, 4 (2023), 043210. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.043210

    doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.5.043210 2023

  38. [2025]

    InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Quantum Software (QSW)

    Make Some Noise! Measuring Noise Model Quality in Real-World Quantum Software. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Quantum Software (QSW). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 11 pages. doi:10.1109/QSW67625.2025.00010

    arXiv 2025