Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Quantum Pattern Detection: Accurate State- and Circuit-based Analyses

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quantum computing patterns can be automatically detected in source code with near-perfect accuracy by pairing state-based and circuit-based analyses, the paper argues, outperforming the prior detection approach.

desk verdict Useful first tool and benchmark for quantum pattern detection, but the headline accuracy numbers are partly self-fulfilling because the ground truth uses the same concrete implementations the detectors recognize. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15895 v1 pith:7CLOLSU6 submitted 2025-01-27 quant-ph cs.SE

Julian Shen , Joshua Ammermann , Christoph König , Ina Schaefer This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.SE
keywords quantumcomputingpatternspatterndetectionsoftwareengineeringstaticanalysisdynamiccircuitsOpenQASMbenchmarkdataset
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that the gap between theoretical quantum computing patterns and actual source code can be closed by automatic detection, and it provides a framework that does so for eight common patterns. The framework pairs two complementary analyses: state-based detectors that inspect the quantum state vector after each operation, and circuit-based detectors that match characteristic gate-level substructures. On a new benchmark of 20 quantum algorithms with manually labeled ground truth, all state-based detectors achieve a perfect F1-score of 1.0 and all circuit-based detectors achieve perfect recall, while the only prior detection approach is outperformed in both the number of patterns recognized and detection accuracy. The paper also contributes the benchmark dataset itself, intended for future pattern-detection research. If accurate, the framework turns quantum patterns from purely conceptual blueprints into recoverable code-level structures.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the pairing of a state analyzer with a circuit analyzer, with each pattern assigned to the side that captures its invariant. The state analyzer represents the quantum system's full state vector after every unitary instruction and uses the Schmidt decomposition theorem: for each bipartition of the qubits, it computes the Schmidt rank, and a change from rank 1 to rank greater than 1 signals the Creating Entanglement pattern; uniform superposition is recognized from the state vector's equal-amplitude structure. The circuit analyzer operates on the OpenQASM gate-level description and looks for pattern-specific subcircuit fingerprints, such as layers of Hadamard gates for Uniform Superposition, Pauli-X layers for Basis Encoding, and the two-subsequent-circuits-are-inverses test for Uncompute, using the inverse operation available in the quantum computing library. This division of labor is load-bearing: state analysis is exact but exponential in the number of qubits because the state vector doubles per qubit, while circuit analysis is polynomial and therefore scalable to large circuits.

What would settle it

Extend the benchmark with additional standard implementations of the same patterns, such as another amplitude-encoding construction or a different uncompute circuit layout, and rerun the framework; if recall drops below 1.0, the reported accuracy is specific to the implementations the detectors were built around rather than to the patterns themselves.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that every one of the eight studied quantum patterns has a defining property that is either state-based or circuit-based, and that choosing the detector to match that property yields accurate automatic recognition. Creating Entanglement and Uniform Superposition are detected by dynamic state analysis: the framework computes the Schmidt decomposition across every bipartition after each instruction, and a transition from Schmidt rank 1 to rank greater than 1 marks an entanglement-creation event. The remaining patterns are detected by static circuit analysis: Basis Encoding by Pauli-X gates in the first layer, Angle Encoding by rotation gates matching input values, Amplitude Encoding by the specific circuit construction the detector is built around, Quantum Phase Estimation by its characteristic inverse-controlled structure, Uncompute by searching for inverse subcircuit pairs, and Post Selective Measurement by code-level measurement-conditioned control flow. The evaluation reports an F1-measure of 1.0 for every state-based detector and a recall of 1.0 for every circuit-based detector on the paper's 20-algorithm benchmark, with precision values between 0.75 and 1.0 for circuit-based detectors. The paper presents this as evidence that quantum patterns can be detected very accurately, and that the framework's accuracy exceeds that of the only existing detection tool.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the manually created ground truth labels are correct and were made independently of the detectors; since the labels used the same pattern definitions and the same concrete implementations the detectors recognize, the perfect recall scores partly reflect the labeler agreeing with the detectors rather than an external standard.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the framework's accuracy holds beyond the benchmark, developers can map high-level quantum design patterns directly onto source code, making pattern usage in existing algorithms inspectable.
  • The released benchmark gives future pattern-detection work a common ground truth, addressing a gap that the paper identifies in prior quantum software research.
  • Circuit-based detectors scale to thousands of qubits or layers, so large real-world circuits can be scanned for encoding and phase-estimation patterns in under a second on modest hardware.
  • The state-based detectors' exponential scaling in qubit count confines exact entanglement-superposition detection to smaller circuits, a boundary the paper explicitly acknowledges.
  • The framework can flag code passages that match no known pattern, which the paper proposes as a way to discover missing patterns in the theoretical pattern language.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One reasonable extension is to treat the reported recall of 1.0 as benchmark-specific: because the ground-truth labels and the detectors were built from the same pattern definitions and the same concrete implementations (for example, one specific amplitude-encoding circuit), adding other valid implementations of the same patterns to the benchmark would likely lower recall and give a truer measure
  • The same two-sided architecture could be applied to patterns not covered here: any pattern with a state invariant (such as a target entanglement structure) fits the state analyzer, and any pattern with a recognizable gate skeleton fits the circuit analyzer, so the framework's extension path is already implicit in its design.
  • A hybrid detector that uses the cheap circuit-based scan to propose candidate locations and then runs the exact state-based check only on those slices could sidestep the exponential cost of full state analysis while keeping the state-based precision, at the price of a more complex implementation.
  • The comparison against the prior tool suggests that detection accuracy in this area is currently limited more by detector coverage than by the difficulty of the underlying recognition problem, since the same circuits that the prior tool missed were recognized by straightforward state or subcircuit checks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an automatic framework for detecting eight quantum computing patterns in OpenQASM circuits. The framework combines two analysis styles: state-based detectors that inspect the evolving quantum state (Uniform Superposition, Creating Entanglement) and circuit-based detectors that match gate-level structures (Basis Encoding, Angle Encoding, Amplitude Encoding, Quantum Phase Estimation, Uncompute, Post Selective Measurement). The authors contribute a manually labeled benchmark of 20 quantum algorithms drawn from MQT Bench and Qiskit, evaluate precision, recall, and F1-measure on that benchmark (Table III), study runtime scalability, and compare against the existing Pérez-Castillo et al. detector on a shared subset (Table IV). The central claims are that all detectors achieve high accuracy, that all circuit-based detectors achieve a recall of 1.0, and that the framework outperforms the prior approach in detection accuracy.

Significance. If the accuracy results are independently validated, the framework would be a useful step toward mapping abstract quantum pattern languages to concrete quantum code, and the contributed benchmark would be a reusable asset for future pattern-detection research. The paper is commendable for giving explicit algorithmic descriptions (Algorithms 1 and 2), analyzing runtime complexity, discussing scalability, and releasing an open-source implementation, all of which support reproducibility. The state-based detectors for Uniform Superposition and Creating Entanglement are exact given an exact state-vector simulation, so their perfect behavior on the tested circuits is well founded. The empirical comparison with the only other known tool is also a valuable effort. However, the benchmark ground truth is created by the authors using the same pattern definitions and the same concrete circuit implementations that the detectors are designed to recognize, so the central accuracy claims are not yet independently established; in particular, the perfect recall values partly reflect labeler-detector agreement rather than general pattern-detection performance.

major comments (4)
  1. [§V-A, Table II, and §V-D] The ground truth is constructed by the authors manually scanning the source code and using algorithm documentations to decide which patterns occur in each subject system. Because the detectors implement the same concrete circuit structures the labelers looked for (for example, Amplitude Encoding is labeled only for the Shende et al. implementation, as stated in §V-D), the reported recall of 1.0 in Table III partly measures agreement between the labeler and the detectors rather than detection performance across the full space of valid implementations. The paper itself concedes that adding other valid Amplitude Encoding implementations [24]–[27] would 'significantly lower' recall. To support the central claim, the evaluation needs an external or at least independent ground truth, such as labels produced by multiple annotators who are given only the pattern definitions and not the detector implementations, or the accuracy numbers should be reported as upper bounds for the specific template set.
  2. [§V-C and Table IV] The comparison with Pérez-Castillo et al. in the second cross-validation experiment also uses a subset of their subject systems that the authors label for Uniform Superposition and Creating Entanglement in the same manual, definition-guided manner as the main benchmark. Consequently, the conclusion in §V-D that 'our framework offers a more accurate detection approach' is not independently established: the recall values in Table IV reflect author-created labels rather than an external standard. A fair comparison would require a pre-existing or externally labeled ground truth, or at least a blinded labeling protocol that is applied uniformly to both tools.
  3. [§IV-B, Algorithm 2] The Uncompute detector equates the pattern with the existence of any pair of equal-sized inverse subcircuits and returns True for such a pair. The paper itself notes that not every occurrence of an inverse subcircuit is a pattern instance and suggests adding a precondition that 'the state must have been previously entangled,' but this precondition is not implemented. This is a load-bearing definitional choice: the reported precision of 0.75 for Uncompute and the comparison in §V-C depend on this overbroad matching rule. The authors should either implement the suggested precondition and re-evaluate, or explicitly justify the rule and analyze its false-positive behavior.
  4. [§V-A, Table II, and §V-E] The accuracy evaluation is based on very small per-pattern counts: Table II shows exactly one subject system each for Amplitude Encoding and Post Selective Measurement, and the external validity discussion acknowledges the small number of subject systems. With denominators this small, a recall of 1.0 for those patterns is not statistically meaningful and can change drastically with one additional subject system. The paper should report the number of labeled occurrences per pattern, and should use per-pattern counts or confidence intervals when interpreting the accuracy results.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§IV-A] The state at time slice 1 after a Hadamard gate on the first qubit should be (|00⟩+|10⟩)/√2, not (|00⟩+|01⟩)/√2; the separability conclusion is unaffected, but the formula as written is incorrect.
  2. [§IV-B, Algorithm 2] The pseudo-code indentation is ambiguous: the 'if inverse subcircuit found' condition is not clearly placed inside the inner loop, and the return statement is visually detached from the condition. Please restructure the algorithm listing for readability.
  3. [§V-C, Table IV] The table mixes ground-truth marks and detection results in the same columns, which makes it difficult to see the per-pattern denominators. It would be clearer to present the number of labeled occurrences and the number of detected occurrences separately.
  4. [§IV and §V-D] The circuit-based detectors for Basis, Angle, and Amplitude Encoding rely on threshold values, but the thresholds are not specified in the paper; the discussion only mentions that they could be tuned with machine learning. Please state the exact thresholds and how they were chosen so that the reported accuracy is reproducible from the text.
  5. [Abstract and §I] Minor typographical issues such as 'exploi ting' and 'pro gramming' in the abstract should be corrected in the final version.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Ground truth in Sec. V-A is created by the authors using the same concrete pattern implementations the detectors recognize, so the perfect recall and the Pérez-Castillo comparison partly measure labeler-detector agreement rather than general detection accuracy.

  1. self definitional [Section V-D, RQ 1 (Accuracy) discussion]
    "For Amplitude Encoding, we only considered one specific implementation proposed by Shende et al. [23], although there are many other possible implementations for this pattern [24]–[27]. If these were also taken into account for the ground truth, the recall value of our detector would be significantly lower."

    The benchmark's 'Amplitude Encoding' label is defined to include only the Shende et al. circuit, which is exactly the implementation the circuit-based detector is built to recognize. The reported recall of 1.0 for AMP therefore reports agreement between the labeler's restricted definition and the detector's matching rule, not detection across the pattern's valid implementation space. The paper's own admission that adding other valid implementations would 'significantly lower' recall confirms that the perfect-recall result is an artifact of the ground-truth definition rather than an independent empirical finding.

  2. self definitional [Section V-A, 'Subject Systems and Ground Truth']
    "We close this gap by creating a ground truth for subject systems selected from MQT Bench [29] and Qiskit 0.45.0 [28] by manually determining the quantum patterns present in the underlying test code. To decide whether quantum patterns are present in the underlying subject systems, we use algorithm documentations and scan the source code manually for pattern occurrences."

    The patterns are defined in the paper by the same concrete circuit structures the detectors search for: Uncompute is defined via the Dervovic et al. circuit and detected by searching for an inverse subcircuit (Alg. 2), QPE is defined via the Nielsen et al. circuit, and Amplitude Encoding via Shende et al. Manually labeling subject systems by scanning source code with these definitions means the ground truth and the detectors share the same recognition rules. The Table III recall of 1.0 for circuit-based detectors then mostly confirms that the labeler and detector agree on those specific structures rather than establishing recognition across the full space of valid implementations.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self definitional [Section V-A (final paragraph) and Section V-C, Table IV]
    "Finally, we use the dataset of Pérez-Castillo et al. [11] to compare our framework with their detection method. Since their dataset lacks ground truth, we also create a ground truth for a subset of their subject systems."

    The claimed outperformance over Pérez-Castillo et al. is measured on a subset of their 80 circuits for which the authors themselves decide whether Uniform Superposition or Creating Entanglement occurs, using the same pattern definitions and manual code scanning as for the main benchmark. The comparison therefore inherits the same labeler-detector agreement: the authors' framework achieves perfect recall on labels that were not independently established, while Pérez-Castillo et al. are scored against labels created by their competitors. The 'outperforms in detection accuracy' conclusion is thus not tested against an external standard.

full rationale

The accuracy evaluation is the central empirical claim of the paper, and it is partially circular. The authors create the benchmark ground truth themselves by manually scanning source code with the same pattern definitions and, for Amplitude Encoding, explicitly restrict the label to the one concrete implementation (Shende et al.) that their circuit-based detector is built to recognize. The paper concedes that including other valid Amplitude Encoding implementations would 'significantly lower' recall. The same structure applies to Uncompute (defined and detected as an inverse subcircuit) and QPE (defined and detected as the Nielsen et al. circuit), so the Table III recall of 1.0 for circuit-based detectors substantially reflects agreement between the labeler and the detector's matching rules. The comparison with Pérez-Castillo et al. is also scored on a subset for which the authors themselves created the ground truth, so the 'outperforms' claim inherits the same issue. The state-based Uniform Superposition and Creating Entanglement detectors are exact by construction (Schmidt decomposition and state-vector analysis), and the scalability measurements are independent of the benchmark, so the circularity is partial rather than total. The paper itself flags an overfitting risk in Section V-E.2: 'It is possible that our detection programs overfit on these implementations since all quantum algorithms are implemented in a similar way,' which is consistent with this finding.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework itself introduces no new physical entities. The evaluation relies on standard quantum-information mathematics, the prior pattern taxonomy, and several domain assumptions about the correctness of the manually created ground truth and the sufficiency of OpenQASM. The one hand-chosen numerical degree of freedom is the set of detection thresholds in the circuit-based detectors, which are not reported.

free parameters (1)
  • Threshold values in circuit-based detectors (Angle Encoding, Basis Encoding, Amplitude Encoding) = Not reported
    The paper states in Section V-D that the detectors use thresholds that could be tuned with machine learning, implying hand-chosen values that affect precision; the actual values are not given.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Schmidt decomposition correctly characterizes entanglement (Schmidt rank > 1 for some bipartition implies entangled state)
    Used in Algorithm 1 to detect the Creating Entanglement pattern; this is a standard theorem.
  • domain assumption The pattern taxonomy of Leymann et al. [5] and Weigold et al. [6], [7] is the correct set of pattern definitions
    The detectors and ground truth both rely on these prior definitions.
  • domain assumption Manual ground truth labeling in Section V-A is correct
    The accuracy evaluation assumes the labels in Table II are right; the authors created these labels themselves.
  • domain assumption OpenQASM is a sufficient input representation for detecting the eight patterns
    All subject circuits are converted to OpenQASM before detection (Section V-A).
  • ad hoc to paper An inverse subcircuit indicates the Uncompute pattern
    Algorithm 2 treats a pair of equal-size inverse subcircuits as Uncompute; the paper notes in Section IV-B that not every inverse subcircuit belongs to a pattern instance.
  • domain assumption The quantum circuits are simulated exactly (infinite precision, no noise)
    State-based detectors require the state vector after each instruction; exact simulation is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Pattern Detection: Accurate State- and Circuit-based Analyses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7CLOLSU6

@misc{pith2026250115895,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Pattern Detection: Accurate State- and Circuit-based Analyses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7CLOLSU6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15895}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum computers have the potential to solve certain problems faster than classical computers by exploiting quantum mechanical effects such as superposition. However, building high-quality quantum software is challenging due to the fundamental differences between quantum and traditional programming and the lack of abstraction mechanisms. To mitigate this challenge, researchers have introduced quantum patterns to capture common high-level design solutions to recurring problems in quantum software engineering. In order to utilize patterns as an abstraction level for implementation, a mapping between the theoretical patterns and the source code is required, which has only been addressed to a limited extent. To close this gap, we propose a framework for the automatic detection of quantum patterns using state- and circuit-based code analysis. Furthermore, we contribute a dataset for benchmarking quantum pattern detection approaches. In an empirical evaluation, we show that our framework is able to detect quantum patterns very accurately and that it outperforms existing quantum pattern detection approaches in terms of detection accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15895 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Quantum circuit with two time slices for the creation of an entangled state using a Hadamard gate followed by a CNOT gate [18]. the property |α| 2 + |β| 2 = 1. In order to retrieve information about the state of a qubit, it has to be measured. Measurement collapses the superposition of a qubit and the result depends on the amplitudes α and β. The probability of outcome |0i is |α| 2 and the probability of outcome |1i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Quantum circuit for the Uncompute procedure [22]. |fi(x)i refers to the qubit states in |f(x)i = |f1(x)f2(x) . . . fm(x)i. Uncompute: Uncompute proposes a solution to remove un￾wanted entanglements using the quantum circuit proposed by Dervovic et al. [22] shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Average execution times of different detection algorithms depending on the circuit width and depth. detecting eight quantum computational patterns, while P´erez￾Castillo et al. [11] only offer implementations for five patterns. The results of the second cross-validation experiment are displayed in Tab. IV. It shows whether the pattern Uniform Superposition or Creating Entanglement occurs in 20 of the 80 subject syst… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the total number of patterns detected between our framework and the implementation of P´erez-Castillo et al. [11]. The results of the patterns that both approaches can detect are shown to the left of the dashed line, while those that can only be recognize…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    Quantum-state preparat ion with universal gate decompositions,

    M. Plesch and i. c. v. Brukner, “Quantum-state preparat ion with universal gate decompositions,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 83, p. 032302, Mar

    work page

  2. [27]

    Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations,

    V . Bergholm, J. Izaac, M. Schuld, C. Gogolin, C. Blank, K . McKiernan, and N. Killoran, “Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations,” 2018. [Online]. Availa ble: https:// arxiv.org/abs/1811.04968

    arXiv 2018

  3. [1]

    Homeister, Quantum Computing verstehen: Grundlagen – Anwendungen – Perspektiven , 5th ed., ser

    M. Homeister, Quantum Computing verstehen: Grundlagen – Anwendungen – Perspektiven , 5th ed., ser. Computational Intelligence. Wiesbaden and Heidelberg: Springer Vieweg, 2018. [Online] . Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10455-9

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-658-10455-9 2018

  4. [2]

    Using pattern languages for o bject oriented programs,

    K. Beck and W. Cunningham, “Using pattern languages for o bject oriented programs,” in Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA) , 1987. [Online]. Available: http://c2.com/doc/oopsla87.html

    work page 1987

  5. [3]

    Impact of object or iented design patterns on software development,

    S. Ramasamy, G. Jekese, and C. Hwata, “Impact of object or iented design patterns on software development,” International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research , vol. V olume3, p. 6, 03 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [4]

    Do design patterns improve comm unication? an experiment with pair design,

    B. Unger and W. F. Tichy, “Do design patterns improve comm unication? an experiment with pair design,” in WESS 2000 , May 2000. [Online]. Available: https://ps.ipd.kit.edu/downloads /ka 2000 design patterns improve communication.pdf

    work page 2000

  7. [5]

    Towards a pattern language for quantum algo rithms,

    F. Leymann, “Towards a pattern language for quantum algo rithms,” in Quantum Technology and Optimization Problems , ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, S. Feld and C. Linnhoff-Popien, Eds. Ch am: Springer International Publishing, 2019, vol. 11413, pp. 2 18–230. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03 0-14082-3 19

    doi:10.1007/978-3-03 2019

  8. [6]

    Encoding patterns for quantum algorithms,

    M. Weigold, J. Barzen, F. Leymann, and M. Salm, “Encoding patterns for quantum algorithms,” IET Quantum Communication , vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 141–152, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/ 10.1049/qtc2. 12032

    work page doi:10.1049/qtc2 2021

Show all 45 references
  1. [7]

    Data encoding patterns for quantum computing,

    ——, “Data encoding patterns for quantum computing,” in Proceedings of the 27th Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs , ser. PLoP ’20. USA: The Hillside Group, 2022

    2022

  2. [8]

    Pattern s for Hybrid Quantum Algorithms,

    M. Weigold, J. Barzen, F. Leymann, and D. Vietz, “Pattern s for Hybrid Quantum Algorithms,” in Proceedings of the 15 th Symposium and Summer School on Service-Oriented Computing (SummerSOC 20 21). Springer International Publishing, Sep. 2021, pp. 34–51. [ Online]. Available: h...

    2021 doi

  3. [9]

    Patterns for Quantum Error Handling,

    M. Beisel, J. Barzen, F. Leymann, F. Truger, B. Weder, and V . Y ussupov, “Patterns for Quantum Error Handling,” in Proceedings of the 14 th International Conference on Pervasive Patterns and Applications. Xpert Publishing Services (XPS), Apr. 2022, pp. 22–30

    2022

  4. [10]

    Patterns for Quantum Software Development,

    F. B¨ uhler, J. Barzen, M. Beisel, D. Georg, F. Leymann, a nd K. Wild, “Patterns for Quantum Software Development,” in Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Pervasive Patterns and Ap plications. Xpert Publishing Services (XPS), Jun. 2023, pp. 30–39

    2023

  5. [11]

    A preliminary study of the usage of design patterns in quantum software,

    R. P´ erez-Castillo, M. Fern´ andez-Osuna, J. A. Cruz-L emus, and M. Pi- attini, “A preliminary study of the usage of design patterns in quantum software,” in 2024 ACM/IEEE International W orkshop on Quantum Software Engineering (Q-SE 2024) . New Y ork, NY , USA: Association f...

    2024

  6. [12]

    Fowler, Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture

    M. Fowler, Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture . USA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., 2002. [Onlin e]. Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/579257

    2002 doi

  7. [13]

    Shaw and D

    M. Shaw and D. Garlan, Software architecture: perspectives on an emerging discipline . USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1996. [Online]. Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/231003

    1996 doi

  8. [14]

    Gamma, R

    E. Gamma, R. Helm, R. Johnson, and J. Vlissides, Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software . USA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., 1995

    1995

  9. [15]

    Patterns in model-based engineering,

    D. Sinnig, A. Gaffar, D. Reichart, P . Forbrig, and A. Sef fah, “Patterns in model-based engineering,” in Computer-Aided Design of User Interfaces IV , R. J. Jacob, Q. Limbourg, and J. V anderdonckt, Eds. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2005, pp. 197–210. [ Online]. Available...

    2005 doi

  10. [16]

    Buschmann, R

    F. Buschmann, R. Meunier, H. Rohnert, P . Sommerlad, and M. Stal, Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture - V olume 1: A Syste m of Patterns. Wiley Publishing, 1996. [Online]. Available: https://dl .acm. org/doi/10.5555/249013

    1996 doi

  11. [17]

    A new notation for quantum mechanics,

    P . A. M. Dirac, “A new notation for quantum mechanics,” Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical S ociety, vol. 35, no. 3, p. 416–418, 1939. [Online]. Available: https ://doi.org/ 10.1017/S0305004100021162

    1939 doi

  12. [18]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition , 10th ed. USA: Cambridge University Press, 2011. [Online]. Available: https://doi .org/10.1017/ CBO9780511976667

    2011

  13. [19]

    A tomic coherent states in quantum optics,

    F. T. Arecchi, E. Courtens, R. Gilmore, and H. Thomas, “A tomic coherent states in quantum optics,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 6, pp. 2211–2237, Dec 1972. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevA.6. 2211

    1972

  14. [20]

    Zur theorie der linearen und nichtlineare n integralgleichungen. iii. teil,

    E. Schmidt, “Zur theorie der linearen und nichtlineare n integralgleichungen. iii. teil,” Mathematische Annalen , vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 370–399, 1908. [Online]. Available: https://doi .org/10.1007/ BF01456418

    1908

  15. [21]

    M. M. Wilde, Quantum Information Theory , 1st ed. USA: Cambridge University Press, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi .org/10.1017/ CBO9781139525343

    2013

  16. [22]

    Quantum linear systems algorithms: a primer,

    D. Dervovic, M. Herbster, P . Mountney, S. Severini, N. U sher, and L. Wossnig, “Quantum linear systems algorithms: a primer,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.08227

    2018 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Synthesis of quan tum-logic circuits,

    V . Shende, S. Bullock, and I. Markov, “Synthesis of quan tum-logic circuits,” IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems , vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1000–1010, 2006

    2006

  18. [25]

    Quantum circuits for metries,

    R. Iten, R. Colbeck, I. Kukuljan, J. Home, and M. Christa ndl, “Quantum circuits for metries,” Physical Review A , vol. 93, no. 3,

  19. [26]

    Decompositions of ge neral quantum gates,

    M. Mottonen and J. J. V artiainen, “Decompositions of ge neral quantum gates,” 2005. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv .org/abs/quant- ph/0504100

    2005

  20. [28]

    Qiskit: An open-source framewo rk for quantum computing,

    Qiskit contributors, “Qiskit: An open-source framewo rk for quantum computing,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo. 2573505

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    MQT Bench : Benchmarking software and design automation tools for quan tum computing,

    N. Quetschlich, L. Burgholzer, and R. Wille, “MQT Bench : Benchmarking software and design automation tools for quan tum computing,” Quantum, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.cda.cit. tum.de/mqtbench/

    2023

  22. [30]

    Open quantum assembly language,

    A. W. Cross, L. S. Bishop, J. A. Smolin, and J. M. Gambetta , “Open quantum assembly language,” 2017. [Online]. Available: ht tps://arxiv. org/abs/1707.03429

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Open quantum assembly language,

    A. Cross, A. Javadi-Abhari, T. Alexander, L. Bishop, C. A. Ryan, S. Heidel, N. de Beaudrap, J. Smolin, J. M. Gambetta, and B. R. Johnson, “Open quantum assembly language,” ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing Journal , 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www. amazon.science/pu...

    2022

  24. [32]

    Evaluation: from precision, recall an d f-measure to roc, informedness, markedness and correlation,

    D. M. W. Powers, “Evaluation: from precision, recall an d f-measure to roc, informedness, markedness and correlation,” International Journal of Machine Learning Technology 2:1 (2011) , 2011. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.16061v1

    2011 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Quantum Software Design Patterns Detection for Qiskit and QASM circuits,

    R. Perez-Castillo, “Quantum Software Design Patterns Detection for Qiskit and QASM circuits,” Dec. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi. org/10.5281/zenodo.10246499

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    A REVIEW OF DESIGN PA TTERN MINING TECHNIQUES,

    J. Dong, Y . Zhao, and T. Peng, “A REVIEW OF DESIGN PA TTERN MINING TECHNIQUES,” International Journal of Software Engineer- ing and Knowledge Engineering , vol. 19, no. 06, pp. 823–855, Sep. 2009

    2009

  27. [35]

    A survey on design patter n recovery techniques,

    G. Rasool and D. Streitferdt, “A survey on design patter n recovery techniques,” IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues , vol. 8, 11 2011

    2011

  28. [36]

    A Survey on Design Pattern Detection Approaches,

    M. G. Al-Obeidallah, M. Petridis, and S. Kapetanakis, “ A Survey on Design Pattern Detection Approaches,” International Journal of Software Engineering, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    Research Landscape of Pa tterns in Software Engineering: Taxonomy, State-of-the-Art, and Future Directions,

    R. Mzid, S. Selvi, and M. Abid, “Research Landscape of Pa tterns in Software Engineering: Taxonomy, State-of-the-Art, and Future Directions,” SN Computer Science , vol. 5, no. 4, p. 411, Apr. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-0 24-02767-8

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    T he smelly eight: An empirical study on the prevalence of code smells in quantum computing,

    Q. Chen, R. Cˆ amara, J. Campos, A. Souto, and I. Ahmed, “T he smelly eight: An empirical study on the prevalence of code smells in quantum computing,” in Proceedings of the 45th International Conference on Software Engineering , ser. ICSE ’23. IEEE Press, 2023, p. 358–370. [O...

    2023

  31. [39]

    Analyzing quantum program s with lintq: A static analysis framework for qiskit,

    M. Paltenghi and M. Pradel, “Analyzing quantum program s with lintq: A static analysis framework for qiskit,” Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering , vol. 1, no. FSE, p. 2144–2166, Jul. 2024. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3660802

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    Qchecker: Detecting b ugs in quan- tum programs via static analysis,

    P . Zhao, X. Wu, Z. Li, and J. Zhao, “Qchecker: Detecting b ugs in quan- tum programs via static analysis,” 2023 IEEE/ACM 4th International W orkshop on Quantum Software Engineering (Q-SE) , pp. 50–57, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Static entanglement analysis of qua ntum programs,

    S. Xia and J. Zhao, “Static entanglement analysis of qua ntum programs,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org /abs/2304.05049

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    A Systematic Mapping Study on Quantum Circuits Design Patterns,

    S. Jim´ enez-Fern´ andez, J. Cruz-Lemus, and M. Piattin i, “A Systematic Mapping Study on Quantum Circuits Design Patterns,” in Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Enterprise Informa tion Systems. Prague, Czech Republic: SCITEPRESS - Science and Technolog y Pub...

    2023

  35. [43]

    Software Architecture fo r Quantum Computing Systems – A Systematic Review,

    A. A. Khan, A. Ahmad, M. Waseem, P . Liang, M. Fahmideh, T. Mikkonen, and P . Abrahamsson, “Software Architecture fo r Quantum Computing Systems – A Systematic Review,” Mar. 2023 . [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.05505

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Q-pac: Automated detection of quantum bug-fix patterns,

    P . K. Nayak, K. V . Kher, M. B. Chandra, M. V . P . Rao, and L. Z hang, “Q-pac: Automated detection of quantum bug-fix patterns,” 2 023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.17705

    arXiv

  37. [2016]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/Phy sRevA.93.032318

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/Phy sRevA.93.032318

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.