Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Quantum Circuit Construction and Optimization through Hybrid Evolutionary Algorithms

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A hybrid evolutionary algorithm constructs and compresses quantum circuits, cutting depth by 80–90% on random 4- and 6-qubit circuits while keeping fidelity near the target state.

desk verdict A clean, incremental EA-for-circuit-depth paper whose four-seed experiments don't support the abstract's 'high fidelity' claim, but the hybrid idea and ablations are worth a referee's time. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17561 v1 pith:G2GL4H5N submitted 2025-04-24 quant-ph

Leo Sünkel , Philipp Altmann , Michael Kölle , Gerhard Stenzel , Thomas Gabor , Claudia Linnhoff-Popien This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords EvolutionaryAlgorithmQuantumCircuitConstructionArchitectureSearchOptimizationMulti-ObjectiveHybridDepthFidelity
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

This paper argues that a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm can automatically construct and compress quantum circuits, dramatically reducing circuit depth while keeping high fidelity to a target state. The authors test two variants: one that periodically re-optimizes rotation-gate parameters and one that relies purely on mutation and crossover. On random 4- and 6-qubit circuits, the best from-scratch depth reductions reach 80–90% with fidelities between roughly 0.7 and 0.98, depending on circuit size and starting point. This matters because circuit depth is a direct proxy for noise exposure on current quantum hardware, so automated depth reduction is a practical step toward running useful circuits.

What carries the argument

The central object is the circuit solution matrix: rows correspond to qubits and columns to time layers, with each cell holding a gate object, so the whole circuit is a fixed-size grid that mutation and crossover can act on directly. The mechanism is an evolutionary loop combining single-point and uniform-column crossover with a menu of mutations (gate replacement, gate and column swaps, adding or deleting layers, adding CX gates), followed by survivor selection. Fitness is a weighted two-term objective, $f = \alpha F(U,\rho) - \beta \delta_{\text{norm}}$, with fidelity $F(U,\rho)$ to the target state and normalized depth $\delta_{\text{norm}}$, using weights $\alpha = 10$ and $\beta = 1$. Two subroutines carry the hybrid part: a classical parameter optimizer that adjusts rotation angles on a random 10% of the population every 25 generations to maximize fidelity, and a solution-compaction heuristic that removes identity-only layers and merges rotations without changing the circuit's function.

What would settle it

Run the same experiments on a larger set of seeds, say 50 or 100, and on structured benchmark circuits such as QFT, GHZ preparation, or QAOA ansätze; if the mean depth reduction on 4-qubit depth-20 circuits falls well below 80% at comparable fidelity, or if some benchmark circuits show no depth reduction at all, the central claim would be weakened.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm operating on a matrix encoding of quantum circuits can substantially reduce circuit depth while keeping the state close to the target. In the strongest from-scratch result, a random 4-qubit circuit of depth 20 is reproduced with fidelity 0.98354 after an 80% depth reduction by the hybrid EA; the regular EA reaches 82.5% reduction at fidelity 0.9741. Across random circuits, both EAs beat the no-evolution baseline on depth, and the parameter-optimization subroutine generally raises fidelity at the cost of some depth reduction. On 6-qubit circuits, from-scratch depth reductions reach 86–91% with fidelities of 0.71–0.94. When the population is initialized with the target circuit, all EA variants hold fidelity above 0.99 on 4-qubit circuits and still cut depth by 14–43%.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that four random seeds and the particular randomly generated circuits used are representative of typical circuits, so the reported mean depth reductions and fidelities reflect the method's usual behavior rather than lucky draws.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a fresh random 4-qubit depth-20 circuit, the hybrid EA reduces depth by about 80% while the regular EA reaches 82.5%, both with fidelity above 0.97.
  • Initializing the population with the target circuit preserves fidelity above 0.99 on 4-qubit circuits up to depth 47, with depth cuts of 14–43%.
  • From-scratch construction yields larger depth reductions than target-initialized optimization, so the two modes trade fidelity against compression.
  • Adding parameter optimization improves fidelity in most from-scratch runs but often reduces the depth improvement relative to the pure EA, and it is computationally more expensive.
  • Turning off the solution-compaction subroutine lowers depth improvement, for example from 80.32% to 77.13% for the regular EA at depth 47 and from 39.89% to 9.57% for the baseline.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported 80–90% reductions are on randomly generated circuits whose structure may be unusually compressible; a natural test is to run the same EA on structured benchmark circuits such as QFT, GHZ preparation, or QAOA ansätze, where reductions could be smaller.
  • Because the fitness weights strongly favor fidelity ($\alpha=10$, $\beta=1$), the Pareto frontier between fidelity and depth is not explored; varying the weight ratio could yield even lower-depth circuits at modest fidelity cost, or higher fidelity at less compression.
  • Depth alone ignores gate count and hardware connectivity, so the practical gain on real devices needs to be checked against transpiled gate counts and error rates; two circuits with the same depth can differ substantially in noise susceptibility.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a hybrid evolutionary algorithm for quantum circuit construction and optimization, targeting two objectives: minimize circuit depth and maximize fidelity to a target state. Two EA variants are compared: a hybrid variant that periodically calls a COBYLA parameter-optimization subroutine, and a regular EA without it. Each variant is tested in two modes: initializing the population randomly (construction from scratch) and initializing with the target circuit (existing-circuit optimization). Experiments are run on random 4- and 6-qubit circuits of various depths, with four seeds. The reported results show large depth reductions in some settings (e.g., 80% at fidelity 0.98 for a 4-qubit depth-20 circuit) but also fidelities around 0.71–0.77 for the 6-qubit depth-33 experiments. The paper concludes that the proposed methods significantly reduce depth while retaining high fidelity.

Significance. The paper's main value is its detailed and clearly described evolutionary framework and the systematic ablation of the parameter-optimization subroutine. If the reported effects are stable, the work provides a useful baseline and modular building blocks for quantum architecture search. However, the strength of the central claim is currently limited by the small number of seeds, the absence of variance reporting for depth and fidelity, the lack of standard compiler or synthesis baselines, and the fact that the regular EA often outperforms the hybrid in depth reduction. The manuscript also does not supply code or data, so the point estimates cannot be independently verified.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5, Figs. 5–7] The central empirical claim is supported only by means over four seeds, with no error bars, per-seed values, or significance tests for depth or fidelity. The text in Section 5 says 'Experiments were run for 4 different seeds' but does not say whether each seed draws a new random circuit or only a new initialization on one circuit. Given the large spread across configurations (from 26.6% to 90.91% depth reduction), the headline 80% figure in Fig. 5a is a point estimate of unknown stability. Please report the sampling protocol and add variance information or statistical comparisons.
  2. [§6.1, Fig. 7b] The abstract's 'high fidelity' qualifier is not supported by the 6-qubit depth-33 from-scratch results: the hybrid and regular EAs reach fidelities of only 0.77329 and 0.71449 while reducing depth by 88.64% and 90.91%, respectively. These values are below what is usually meant by high fidelity and are also much lower than the 0.94–0.98 fidelities reported for most other configurations. The claims should be restricted to settings where high fidelity is actually achieved, or the fidelity–depth trade-off at 6 qubits should be discussed explicitly.
  3. [§6.1, Figs. 5b–5d and 7b] In most from-scratch experiments, the regular EA without parameter optimization achieves a larger depth reduction than the hybrid EA (e.g., Fig. 5b: 75.0% vs 53.12%; Fig. 5c: 82.43% vs 72.3%; Fig. 5d: 80.32% vs 26.6%; Fig. 7b: 90.91% vs 88.64%). Thus the hybrid variant's advantage is limited to fidelity, and even that does not hold in Fig. 6 (depth-47 without solution optimization, where the 'No EA Op.' baseline reaches 0.98316 fidelity). The paper should characterize the conditions under which the hybrid variant is actually preferable.
  4. [§5, §6.1] The experiments compare the proposed algorithms only against the internal 'No EA Op.' baseline and, in Fig. 8b, a random baseline. There is no comparison with standard quantum circuit optimization or synthesis tools, such as Qiskit's transpiler or established compilers. Consequently, 'significant' depth reduction is demonstrated only with respect to the original randomly generated circuit, not with respect to the methods a practitioner would otherwise use; the practical relevance claim in the introduction and conclusion is therefore under-supported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.5] The optimizer is attributed to 'scikit-kit learn [22]'; COBYLA is provided by SciPy's optimize module, not scikit-learn. The name and the reference should be corrected.
  2. [§4.7, Eq. (6)] The sentence 'where d is the depth of the target circuit and 1 the minimum depth' should read 'and 1 is the minimum depth'; also, δ should be defined explicitly before Eq. (5).
  3. [§5, Figs. 5–7] The random baseline is mentioned in the setup but does not appear in the depth/fidelity figures; it is only visible for fitness in Fig. 8b. Either include it in the main comparisons or explain its absence.
  4. [§6.1, Figs. 5–7] The depth bars have no indication of variance; Fig. 8 reports standard deviation only for fitness, not for depth or fidelity. Please add error bars or per-seed scatter to the main metric figures.
  5. [General] The manuscript does not provide a code or data availability statement, which would be helpful for reproducibility given the small sample sizes and the absence of error bars.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the hybrid EA results are direct optimization outcomes against self-contained baselines, with no prediction reducing to a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper makes no first-principles derivation claim; it reports an evolutionary optimization experiment. The fitness function in Eq. (8)-(9) directly combines fidelity and normalized depth, and the results section reports exactly those two quantities. Optimizing a metric and then reporting that same metric is ordinary direct optimization, not circular reasoning. The COBYLA subroutine in Eq. (4) minimizes 1 - fidelity for rotation parameters; this is a parameter-optimization step inside the algorithm, not a fitted parameter subsequently renamed as a prediction. The solution-optimization subroutine in Section 4.6 is explicitly described as preserving circuit functionality while compacting the representation, so reducing depth through identity removal and rotation combination is a valid equivalence transformation rather than a self-referential claim. The only self-citation is [32], used to justify the matrix-based circuit encoding ('This solution representation was also utilized in [32], and the EA in this work is inspired by techniques introduced there'). This encoding choice is not load-bearing for the reported depth/fidelity comparisons, and the experiments are evaluated self-containedly with Qiskit fidelity and against baselines including a random-search baseline and a no-EA-operations baseline. No uniqueness theorem is imported, and no known empirical result is merely renamed. The absence of error bars or significance tests across four seeds is a statistical robustness concern, not a circularity concern. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on Qiskit statevector simulation as exact, on target states being reachable within the EA's gate set, on arbitrary all-to-all qubit connectivity, and on hand-tuned hyperparameters. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Fitness weights alpha and beta = alpha = 10, beta = 1
    Set in Section 4.7 Equation (9) without sensitivity analysis; directly controls the depth versus fidelity tradeoff, so reported reductions are partly a product of this choice.
  • EA hyperparameters = population 200, generations 1000, crossover rate 0.85, mutation rate 0.85, offspring rate 0.3, replace rate 0.3
    Table 2 states these were 'determined experimentally'; no grid search or sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Parameter optimization schedule = every 25 generations, 0.1 fraction of population, COBYLA max 1000 iterations
    Hand-chosen in Section 4.5; affects how much the hybrid variant improves fidelity and how its results compare with the plain EA.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Qiskit statevector simulation computes exact fidelities for ideal, noiseless circuits.
    All experimental numbers are produced by simulation in Qiskit (Sections 4.5 to 4.7); no noise model or hardware validation is included.
  • domain assumption Target states in the scratch-construction experiments are generated by random circuits over the same gate set available to the EA, so exact preparation is reachable in principle.
    Section 5 says 'various randomly created circuits' but does not specify the generating gate set; if targets used more expressive gates, the reported fidelities would not be achievable.
  • domain assumption The circuit model allows CX gates between arbitrary qubit pairs with no routing or connectivity constraints.
    Section 4.1's matrix encoding places gates on any qubits; real hardware has limited connectivity and would need SWAPs, changing depth.
  • standard math Fidelity as defined in Equations (2) and (3) is an appropriate measure of state-preparation quality.
    Standard definition from Nielsen and Chuang [20], cited in Section 2.1.
  • ad hoc to paper Four random seeds and the chosen circuit depths are representative enough for the reported mean results to generalize.
    Section 5 reports only 4 seeds with no power analysis; the depth and fidelity figures include no error bars.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Circuit Construction and Optimization through Hybrid Evolutionary Algorithms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G2GL4H5N

@misc{pith2026250417561,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Circuit Construction and Optimization through Hybrid Evolutionary Algorithms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G2GL4H5N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17561}
}
read the original abstract

We apply a hybrid evolutionary algorithm to minimize the depth of circuits in quantum computing. More specifically, we evaluate two different variants of the algorithm. In the first approach, we combine the evolutionary algorithm with an optimization subroutine to optimize the parameters of the rotation gates present in the quantum circuit. In the second, the algorithm solely relies on evolutionary operations (i.e., mutations and crossover). We approach the problem from two sides: (1) constructing circuits from the ground up by starting with random initializations and (2) initializing individuals with a target circuit in order to optimize it further according to the fitness function. We run experiments on random circuits with 4 and 6 qubits varying in circuit depth. Our results show that the proposed methods are able to significantly reduce the depth of circuits while still retaining a high fidelity to the target state.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17561 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of a random quantum circuit with 2 qubits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. High level overview of the general process of an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the crossover methods utilized by the EA. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of the mutation operations the algorithm utilizes. What method is employed is determined randomly. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results of circuits with 4 qubits where the circuits are initialized randomly, i.e., created from scratch. Numbers on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results of experiments without the solution optimization subroutine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Results of the experiments with circuits containing 6 qubits. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Fitness over the generations for experiments with circuit with 6 Qubits and depth of 23. Plot shows aggregated results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Results of the circuit optimization experiments, i.e., population is initialized with the target as solution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sergio Altares-López, Angela Ribeiro, and Juan José García-Ripoll. 2021. Auto- matic design of quantum feature maps. Quantum Science and Technology 6, 4 (2021), 045015

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Philipp Altmann, Jonas Stein, Michael Kölle, Adelina Bärligea, Maximilian Zorn, Thomas Gabor, Thomy Phan, Sebastian Feld, and Claudia Linnhoff-Popien. 2024. Challenges for Reinforcement Learning in Quantum Circuit Design. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (Montreal, Canada) (QCE ’24). IEEE Computer Society, 1600–16...

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Pedro H Alvarez, Farhan T Chowdhury, Luke D Smith, Trevor J Brokowski, Clarice D Aiello, Daniel R Kattnig, and Marcos C de Oliveira. 2024. Simulating spin biology using a digital quantum computer: Prospects on a near-term quantum hardware emulator. APL Quantum 1, 3 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Juan Miguel Arrazola, Thomas R Bromley, Josh Izaac, Casey R Myers, Kamil Brádler, and Nathan Killoran. 2019. Machine learning method for state prepara- tion and gate synthesis on photonic quantum computers. Quantum Science and Technology 4, 2 (2019), 024004

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Marco Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Simon C Benjamin, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, Jarrod R McClean, Kosuke Mitarai, Xiao Yuan, Lukasz Cincio, et al. 2021. Variational quantum algorithms. Nature Reviews Physics 3, 9 (2021), 625–644

    2021

  6. [6]

    Samuel Yen-Chi Chen. 2024. Evolutionary Optimization for Designing Variational Quantum Circuits with High Model Capacity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.12484 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Xin Dai, Tzu-Chieh Wei, Shinjae Yoo, and Samuel Yen-Chi Chen. 2024. Quantum machine learning architecture search via deep reinforcement learning. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , Vol. 1. IEEE, 1525–1534

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Li Ding and Lee Spector. 2022. Evolutionary quantum architecture search for parametrized quantum circuits. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion. 2190–2195

    work page 2022

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Agoston E Eiben and Marc Schoenauer. 2002. Evolutionary computing. Inform. Process. Lett. 82, 1 (2002), 1–6

    2002

  2. [10]

    Florian Fürrutter, Gorka Muñoz-Gil, and Hans J Briegel. 2024. Quantum circuit synthesis with diffusion models. Nature Machine Intelligence (2024), 1–10

    2024

  3. [11]

    Yan Ge, Wu Wenjie, Chen Yuheng, Pan Kaisen, Lu Xudong, Zhou Zixiang, Wang Yuhan, Wang Ruocheng, and Yan Junchi. 2024. Quantum circuit syn- thesis and compilation optimization: Overview and prospects. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.00736 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Lov K Grover. 1996. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing . 212–219

    1996

  5. [13]

    Pratibha Raghupati Hegde, Oleksandr Kyriienko, Hermanni Heimonen, Panagio- tis Tolias, Gilbert Netzer, Panagiotis Barkoutsos, Ricardo Vinuesa, Ivy Peng, and Stefano Markidis. 2024. Beyond the Buzz: Strategic Paths for Enabling Useful NISQ Applications. In Proceedings of the 21...

    2024

  6. [14]

    John H Holland. 1992. Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an introductory analysis with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence . MIT press

    1992

  7. [15]

    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. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405....

    2024 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    Michael Kölle, Tom Schubert, Philipp Altmann, Maximilian Zorn, Jonas Stein, and Claudia Linnhoff-Popien. 2024. A Reinforcement Learning Environment for Directed Quantum Circuit Synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.07054 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    David Kremer, Victor Villar, Hanhee Paik, Ivan Duran, Ismael Faro, and Juan Cruz- Benito. 2024. Practical and efficient quantum circuit synthesis and transpiling with Reinforcement Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13196 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Martin Lukac, Marek Perkowski, Hilton Goi, Mikhail Pivtoraiko, Chung Hyo Yu, Kyusik Chung, Hyunkoo Jeech, Byung-Guk Kim, and Yong-Duk Kim. 2003. Evolutionary approach to quantum and reversible circuits synthesis. Artificial Intelligence Review 20 (2003), 361–417

    2003

  11. [19]

    Debarati Mukherjee, Amlan Chakrabarti, and Debotosh Bhattacherjee. 2009. Synthesis of quantum circuits using genetic algorithm. International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering 2, 1 (2009), 212

    2009

  12. [20]

    2010.Quantum computation and quantum information

    Michael A Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang. 2010.Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press

    2010

  13. [21]

    Mateusz Ostaszewski, Lea M Trenkwalder, Wojciech Masarczyk, Eleanor Scerri, and Vedran Dunjko. 2021. Reinforcement learning for optimization of variational quantum circuit architectures. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021), 18182–18194

    2021

  14. [22]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cour- napeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. Journal of Machine ...

    2011

  15. [23]

    Rowan Pellow-Jarman, Anban Pillay, Ilya Sinayskiy, and Francesco Petruccione

  16. [24]

    Václav Potoček, Alan P Reynolds, Alessandro Fedrizzi, and David W Corne. 2018. Multi-objective evolutionary algorithms for quantum circuit discovery. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04458 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    John Preskill. 2018. Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum 2 (2018), 79

    2018

  18. [26]

    Nils Quetschlich, Lukas Burgholzer, and Robert Wille. 2023. Compiler optimiza- tion for quantum computing using reinforcement learning. In2023 60th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC). IEEE, 1–6

    2023

  19. [27]

    Riccardo Rasconi and Angelo Oddi. 2019. An innovative genetic algorithm for the quantum circuit compilation problem. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 33. 7707–7714

    2019

  20. [28]

    Sebastian Rietsch, Abhishek Y Dubey, Christian Ufrecht, Maniraman Periyasamy, Axel Plinge, Christopher Mutschler, and Daniel D Scherer. 2024. Unitary Syn- thesis of Clifford+ T Circuits with Reinforcement Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14865 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Cristian Ruican, Mihai Udrescu, Lucian Prodan, and Mircea Vladutiu. 2008. A genetic algorithm framework applied to quantum circuit synthesis. Nature Inspired Cooperative Strategies for Optimization (NICSO 2007) (2008), 419–429

    2008

  22. [30]

    Priyabrata Senapati, Zhepeng Wang, Weiwen Jiang, Travis S Humble, Bo Fang, Shuai Xu, and Qiang Guan. 2023. Towards redefining the reproducibility in quantum computing: A data analysis approach on nisq devices. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engi...

    2023

  23. [31]

    Peter W Shor. 1994. Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring. In Proceedings 35th annual symposium on foundations of computer science. Ieee, 124–134

    1994

  24. [32]

    Leo Sünkel, Darya Martyniuk, Denny Mattern, Johannes Jung, and Adrian Paschke. 2023. GA4QCO: genetic algorithm for quantum circuit optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.01303 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    John Watrous. 2018. The theory of quantum information . Cambridge university press

    2018

  26. [34]

    Anqi Zhang and Shengmei Zhao. 2023. Evolutionary-based searching method for quantum circuit architecture. Quantum Information Processing 22, 7 (2023), 283

    2023

  27. [2024]

    Quantum Machine Intelligence 6, 2 (2024), 45

    Hybrid genetic optimization for quantum feature map design. Quantum Machine Intelligence 6, 2 (2024), 45

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.