Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 35 references

Any complex tensor network—the workhorse of quantum circuit simulation—can be rewritten into an equivalent real tensor network whose contraction cost is at most 3x the real-skeleton cost, bounded by the tight volume-weighted law 1+2m+r.

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 ↗

A graph rewrite maps complex tensor networks to real ones with proven arithmetic overhead at most 3x and measured speedups on real-only NPUs.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid and honest paper: the cost law is provably right, the hardware speedups are plausible but partly confounded by execution-path effects the authors acknowledge but don't decompose. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.03987 v1 pith:WG6Q5SDQ submitted 2026-08-04 quant-ph

Realified tensor networks: quantum circuit simulation on real-valued matrix accelerators

Yusheng Zhao , Xiwei Pan , Enji Xiong , Chengkai Zhu , Jinguo Liu This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantum circuit simulationtensor network contractionrealificationcomplex-to-real rewritestructure tensorGauss 3Mcontraction orderreal-valued accelerators
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.

The reading

Quantum circuit simulation via tensor-network contraction normally needs complex-number matrix multiplication, but the matrix engines in modern accelerators only execute real arithmetic, so complex products must be rebuilt in software at a flat 3x or 4x cost. This paper's central proposal is a graph rewrite—realification—that converts any complex tensor network into an equivalent real tensor network by giving each complex tensor a single dimension-2 index for its real and imaginary parts and routing products through a fixed symmetric structure tensor. The paper proves a tight cost law: relative to the same network contracted over the reals, the realified contraction costs 1+2m+r times as many real multiplications, where m and r are the volume fractions of two-complex and one-complex contractions, so the overhead lies between 1x (all-real) and 3x (all-complex) and every intermediate's element count at most doubles. It also shows that contraction orders optimized on the complex network transfer to the realified network almost unchanged, and that the rewrite makes reverse-mode differentiation a standard real-valued chain rule. Benchmarks on a real-only accelerator show the realified executor beating both the four-real-GEMM and three-real-GEMM complex lowerings on 64 of 67 circuits, with median speedups of about 1.7x over the four-GEMM baseline.

Core claim

The paper proves that any complex tensor network—the workhorse of quantum circuit simulation—can be rewritten as a real tensor network by a local graph rewrite, with no loss of contraction-order freedom. Each complex tensor gains a dimension-2 index for its real and imaginary parts; a fixed symmetric tensor C realizes complex multiplication in three real multiplications. Pairwise steps cost 3x (merge), 2x (ride), or 1x (pass), so by Theorem 4 total overhead is 1+2m+r, between 1x and 3x, with intermediates at most doubled. Complex-optimal contraction orders transfer within 5e-4 on 66 of 67 circuits; on a real-only NPU the rewrite beat four-real-GEMM and per-GEMM Gauss lowerings on 64 of 67 ci

What carries the argument

The structure tensor C—the 2x2x2 real tensor encoding the multiplication table of C as a real *-algebra—is the load-bearing object. Contracting the green legs of two realified operands through C (plus a sign flip Z) reproduces complex multiplication with exactly three real multiplications, the tensor form of Gauss's 3M algorithm; its permutation symmetry, conjugate covariance, unit rule, and cascade rule make the wiring a gauge choice, so any contraction tree works. The cost law is carried by classifying each pairwise contraction as merge, ride, or pass with volume fractions m and r, yielding overhead 1+2m+r and a 2x bound on every intermediate.

Load-bearing premise

The measured wall-clock advantage assumes the compared executors differ only in their complex-multiplication strategy; if the baseline is slower for unrelated execution-path reasons, the speedup is not entirely due to the rewrite.

What would settle it

Run an all-real benchmark cell (m=r=0) where all three executors perform the identical number of multiplications; if the realified executor's wall-clock time is not close to the four-GEMM baseline's, executor-level effects—not the arithmetic rewrite—explain part of the speedup. A stronger test: hand-fuse a per-GEMM 3M kernel that avoids separate launches and combination passes; if it matches network-3M's wall-clock time on the same contraction plans, the claimed structural benefit of the network-level rewrite is not structural.

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

If this is right

  • Real-only matrix engines (NPUs, TPUs, GPU tensor cores) can execute complex tensor-network contraction with arithmetic overhead never above 3x the real skeleton, instead of a flat 4x textbook penalty.
  • Partially real circuits pay less: overhead is set by where complex gates sit in the contraction tree, not by their count—spatially clustered complex gates can cut overhead from roughly 2.9x to 2.0x at fixed complex-gate count.
  • Contraction-order optimizers written for complex networks can be reused without reoptimization: convert-only plans match full green-aware annealing to within 5e-4 on 66 of 67 circuits.
  • Real-valued objectives computed from realified networks differentiate via the ordinary real chain rule, removing the need for complex Wirtinger calculus in reverse-mode automatic differentiation of multilinear contraction.
  • The network-level rewrite, not the 3M arithmetic identity alone, is what converts the arithmetic saving into wall-clock speedup: a per-GEMM Gauss lowering stayed within a few percent of the 4M baseline, while the embedded rewrite gave median ~1.7x speedups.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The cost law should extend unchanged to any complex tensor network—expectation values of projected entangled pair states, complex linear algebra, and similar settings—so real-only hardware could serve a wider range of scientific computing; benchmarking that is a natural next step the paper does not take.
  • The placement-versus-count result suggests a practical compilation rule: on real-only hardware, schedule or compile complex gates into contiguous spatial clusters so contraction trees can route most volume through cheaper rides and passes.
  • The contrast with circuit-level realification—whose frozen ancilla worldline can inflate intermediates exponentially—points to a general design principle: auxiliary algebraic bookkeeping should be aligned with the contraction tree, not with gate order; testing this on other algebras such as quaternions or Clifford algebras would be a natural extension.
  • The paper's open conjecture that the worst-case conversion gap is strictly below 3x could be settled by explicit constructions; if the gap can reach 3x, green-sparse networks would need a lightweight green-aware polish rather than convert-only deployment.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a network-level realification rewrite for complex tensor-network contraction on real-only matrix accelerators. Each complex tensor is augmented with a dimension-2 'green' leg encoding real and imaginary parts; pairwise contractions are classified as merge (two green operands), ride (one green operand), or pass (no green operand), and the structure tensor C realizes complex multiplication. The central theoretical contribution is Theorem 4, which states that, on any binary contraction tree, the realified contraction has arithmetic overhead 1+2m+r in real multiplications, where m and r are the merge and ride volume fractions, with 1 ≤ overhead ≤ 3 and every intermediate at most doubled in element count. The paper also reports contraction-volume audits on 67 circuits, order-transfer experiments showing convert-only is within 5e-4 of full reoptimization on 66 of 67 circuits, and Ascend 910 wall-clock comparisons in which network-3M beats GEMM-4M and GEMM-3M on twelve random circuits and on 52 of 55 device-clean structured cells. Appendices provide algebraic verification of the spider-fusion rules, a landscape theory for order-transfer flatness, a reverse-mode differentiation rule, precision gates, and a reproducibility/data-availability statement.

Significance. If the cost law and hardware results hold, this is a practically useful and theoretically clean method: the overhead formula is derived from a rank-3 tensor decomposition with no fitted parameters, it is audited across the full real-to-complex range, and the memory bound is simple and tight. The paper is unusually transparent about several limitations, including the un-decomposed wall-clock excess and the adversarial green-sparse family in Appendix A. The algebraic core is a nice compilation of known *-algebra realification into a contraction-level method, and the proof of Theorem 4 is short and verifiable. The empirical audits and reproducible data repository (pinned toolchain, archived plans) are strengths. The main weakness is the causal attribution of the measured wall-clock speedups to the arithmetic saving; the paper's own all-real control shows a substantial execution-path effect, and the device-clean exclusion is not fully documented in the text.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2 (Table 3 and surrounding text)] The all-real control cells execute identical multiplication counts in every executor (m=r=0), yet t4M/tnet-3M ranges 0.99–1.46 with median 1.16. This is a large execution-path speedup that is folded into every measured ratio. The paper states that the excess over the multiplication-count reference is not decomposed, but the structured median speedup of 1.42x and random median 1.68x are then not cleanly attributable to the realification arithmetic. Since the abstract and conclusions advertise these wall-clock wins, please provide a corrected analysis: report speedups net of a matched all-real baseline, or at least per-family all-real controls and a conservative lower bound on the arithmetic-specific speedup. The sign test (52 of 55) is uninformative on this point because network-3M also wins at multiplication parity.
  2. [§3.2, Table 3 caption] The 'device-clean' structured set excludes cells with a documented device-software fallback, but the number and identity of excluded cells are not reported in the manuscript. Without this, the 52-of-55 win record and the median speedups could be sensitive to exclusion. Please report the exclusion count, the reasons, and whether any non-win cells were excluded. The reader should not have to consult the data repository to assess the benchmark claim.
  3. [§3.2, random-circuit rows] The all-real control is only reported for structured cells. The random circuits (Table 2) have no multiplication-parity control, so the same execution-path confound is unconstrained for the median 1.68x random speedup. Since random circuits are the headline hardware result, either add a parity control for at least a subset of random cells or qualify the random speedups as total wall-clock ratios rather than arithmetic-derived speedups.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix E] The heading 'F orward rule' contains a typographical space; should be 'Forward rule'.
  2. [§4 / §3.2] The conclusion says the method saves 'up to 4x in the all-real limit' against 'flat 4x per-step GEMM-4M lowering', but Section 3.2 defines GEMM-4M with a structural-real shortcut that would give 1x in the all-real limit. Make explicit that the 4x comparison is against the naive 4M lowering without the structural-real shortcut.
  3. [Table 1] The text says a horizontal rule separates the nine core networks from the three extension circuits, but the rule is not visible in the table as typeset. Add a visible separator or explain the grouping in the caption.
  4. [Appendix D] The 'four algebraic rules' are introduced as Eq. (4) plus the cascade rule; the enumeration is clear but could be labeled (R1)–(R4) to make the subsequent references easier to follow.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Theorem 4 is derived from the construction itself, the audits check the law's accounting rather than fitting it, and the hardware claims carry explicit controls and caveats.

full rationale

The central claim, Theorem 4's overhead 1+2m+r, is derived from the realification construction: passes are charged 1x, rides 2x because the green leg is a spectator, merges 3x via the explicit rank-3 decomposition of C in Eq. (6), and the volume-weighted average gives 3m+2r+(1-m-r)=1+2m+r. No parameter is fitted to data: m and r are read off the chosen contraction tree and the law is then checked, so the audits are accounting rather than prediction. The order-transfer flatness is supported by Appendix A theorems with explicit proofs (Propositions 5, Theorems 6 and 8), and the empirical claim is qualified: 'the hypothesis is verified within search budget rather than proved.' The hardware section explicitly identifies the uncontrolled confound ('the excess of the measured speedups over this reference is not decomposed into launch, materialization, and data-movement contributions in this work') and runs all-real controls showing 0.99-1.46x variation, so the causal attribution is hedged rather than hidden. Citations to the authors' own tools (omeco [30], Yao.jl [33], and ref. [26]) are implementation/reproducibility references, not load-bearing theoretical justifications. The structure tensor is credited to prior work [18,19] but is also defined and verified self-contained in Eqs. (3), (6) and Appendix D. I find no step in which a prediction reduces by construction to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

m and r in the cost law are measured per-network fractions, not fitted parameters; the law contains no adjustable constants. The proof relies on the rank-3 tensor decomposition of the structure tensor (Gauss 3M, Winograd optimality), on spider-fusion identities for the C tensor as a commutative Frobenius algebra, and on the faithfulness of the realification map. These are standard results, cited and partially re-verified in Appendix D. No free parameters or new physical entities are introduced.

axioms (3)
  • standard math The structure tensor C has real tensor rank 3, and Gauss's 3M formula is multiplication-minimal for complex multiplication.
    Invoked in Theorem 4 proof; lower bound from Winograd [11], attained by Eq. (6).
  • standard math (R^2, C, 1) forms a commutative Frobenius algebra whose spider-fusion rules are valid.
    Used for tree-freedom in Sec 2.2; verified directly in Appendix D and traced to Bauer [18,19].
  • domain assumption The realification map preserves the value of any complex tensor-network contraction under any contraction tree.
    Definitions 1-3 and induction over the tree in Sec 2.2; relies on the algebraic identities.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Realified tensor networks: quantum circuit simulation on real-valued matrix accelerators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WG6Q5SDQ

@misc{pith2026260803987,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Realified tensor networks: quantum circuit simulation on real-valued matrix accelerators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WG6Q5SDQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03987}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Tensor-network contraction simulates quantum circuits, but modern matrix accelerators (NPUs, TPUs) expose only real GEMM pipelines, so the complex networks of quantum simulation must be reconstructed in software. We resolve the mismatch by a realification rewrite that maps any complex tensor network to a real one. At each merge of two complex tensors, a rank-3 structure tensor realizes Gauss's three-multiplication (3M) formula; contractions with one or no complex operand need only two or one real products. We prove a tight cost law: overhead $1 + 2m + r$ in real multiplications, where $m$ and $r$ are the volume fractions of two- and one-complex-operand contractions, never exceeding $3\times$ relative to real contraction, with every intermediate at most doubled in size. On 67 circuits (random, Clifford+$T$, QAOA, VQE), the law holds across the real-to-complex range and complex-gate placement, not count, governs cost. Contraction orders transfer from the complex network with a relative arithmetic-cost gap below $5\times 10^{-4}$ on 66 of 67 circuits; the exception closes under a few steps of low-temperature simulated annealing. On an Ascend 910 NPU the rewrite beat both the four-real-GEMM baseline and a per-GEMM Gauss lowering on all twelve random circuits and on 52 of 55 structured cells (three cells slower by at most 12\%); the four-GEMM baseline was slower by a median $1.7\times$ (random) and $1.4\times$ (structured). Realification makes complex tensor-network contraction native to real-only matrix engines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03987 by Chengkai Zhu, Enji Xiong, Jinguo Liu, Xiwei Pan, Yusheng Zhao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: From quantum circuit to real-valued contraction. (a) A quantum circuit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) M distinguishes input legs (solid) from output (dashed). (b) Absorbing Z yields C, invariant under all permutations of its legs. 𝑇𝐶 = 𝑇𝐴 𝑇𝐵 𝒞︀ 𝑍 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Matrix product C = AB in the realified picture: the green legs of TA and TB merge through C, followed by Z on the output. Conjugation and phases. Quantum circuit networks also require conjugation (bra vectors, ad￾joints) and global phases. Both are local operations on the green leg, and neither adds contraction￾stage multiplications: conjugation is a sign flip, and a global phase, known when the network is… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Conjugation: Z on the green leg gives TA∗ . (b) Global phase: the rotation Rφ on the green leg gives Te iφA. Neither adds contraction-stage multiplications: the sign flip is free, and static phases are absorbed into leaf data at construction. 2.2 Tree freedom and the algebraic rules Each pairwise contraction is faithful, so induction over any contraction tree maps every complex tensor network to a real… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: One complex network, two realifications. Contracting the same three-tensor chain along [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The algebra of the realified representation. (a) Matrix product (see also Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The three pairwise-contraction cases and their arithmetic cost relative to the same step [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Measured overhead versus merge fraction m for all 67 benchmark instances: twelve random circuits (orange circles), 24 Clifford+T (purple triangles), 10 QAOA (blue diamonds), and 21 VQE (green squares). The law (5) confines every point to the band between the solid line 1 + 2m (r = 0) and the dashed line 2 + m (r = 1 − m). All-real circuits (Clifford+T at density 0, TFIM-type VQE) cluster at (m=0, 1×); deep… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Pipeline comparison: reoptimization after realification is unnecessary on the tested [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Forward and backward contractions with green-index labels. (a) Forward product: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Markov and Yaoyun Shi

    Igor L. Markov and Yaoyun Shi. Simulating quantum computation by contracting tensor networks.SIAM Journal on Computing, 38(3):963–981, 2008

    2008

  2. [2]

    A flexible high-performance simulator for verifying and benchmarking quantum circuits implemented on real hardware.npj Quantum Information, 5:86, 2019

    Benjamin Villalonga, Sergio Boixo, Bron Nelson, Christopher Henze, Eleanor Rieffel, Rupak Biswas, and Salvatore Mandr` a. A flexible high-performance simulator for verifying and benchmarking quantum circuits implemented on real hardware.npj Quantum Information, 5:86, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Hyper-optimized tensor network contraction.Quantum, 5:410, 2021

    Johnnie Gray and Stefanos Kourtis. Hyper-optimized tensor network contraction.Quantum, 5:410, 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    Solving the sampling problem of the Sycamore quantum circuits.Physical Review Letters, 129:090502, 2022

    Feng Pan, Keyang Chen, and Pan Zhang. Solving the sampling problem of the Sycamore quantum circuits.Physical Review Letters, 129:090502, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor

    Frank Arute et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature, 574:505–510, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Adam G. M. Lewis et al. Large-scale distributed linear algebra with tensor processing units. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(33):e2122762119, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Quantum Circuit Simulation by SGEMM Emulation on Tensor Cores and Automatic Precision Selection

    Hiroyuki Ootomo and Rio Yokota. Quantum circuit simulation by SGEMM emulation on tensor cores and automatic precision selection. InInternational Conference on High Perfor- mance Computing (ISC High Performance), 2023. arXiv:2303.08989

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Simulation of quantum physics with Tensor Processing Units: brute-force computation of ground states and time evolution

    Markus Hauru et al. Simulation of quantum physics with tensor processing units: brute-force computation of ground states and time evolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.10466, 2021. 22

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    Simulation of quantum many-body dynamics with tensor processing units: Floquet prethermalization.PRX Quantum, 3:020331, 2022

    Alan Morningstar et al. Simulation of quantum many-body dynamics with tensor processing units: Floquet prethermalization.PRX Quantum, 3:020331, 2022

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    Density matrix renormalization group with tensor processing units

    Martin Ganahl et al. Density matrix renormalization group with tensor processing units. PRX Quantum, 4:010317, 2023

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    On the number of multiplications necessary to compute certain functions

    Shmuel Winograd. On the number of multiplications necessary to compute certain functions. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 23(2):165–179, 1970. doi: 10.1002/cpa. 3160230204

    doi:10.1002/cpa 1970

  12. [12]

    Nicholas J. Higham. Stability of a method for multiplying complex matrices with three real matrix multiplications.SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 13(3):681–687,

    work page

  13. [13]

    Van Zee and Tyler M

    Field G. Van Zee and Tyler M. Smith. Implementing high-performance complex matrix multiplication via the 3M and 4M methods.ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 44(1):1–36, 2017. doi: 10.1145/3086466

    work page doi:10.1145/3086466 2017

  14. [14]

    A 2 rebit gate universal for quantum computing.arXiv preprint quant-ph/0210187, 2002

    Terry Rudolph and Lov Grover. A 2 rebit gate universal for quantum computing.arXiv preprint quant-ph/0210187, 2002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  15. [15]

    Both Toffoli and controlled-NOT need little help to do universal quantum computation.Quantum Information and Computation, 3(1):84–92, 2003

    Yaoyun Shi. Both Toffoli and controlled-NOT need little help to do universal quantum computation.Quantum Information and Computation, 3(1):84–92, 2003

    work page 2003

  16. [16]

    A simple proof that Toffoli and Hadamard are quantum universal.arXiv preprint quant-ph/0301040, 2003

    Dorit Aharonov. A simple proof that Toffoli and Hadamard are quantum universal.arXiv preprint quant-ph/0301040, 2003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  17. [17]

    Simulating quantum systems using real Hilbert spaces.Physical Review Letters, 102(2):020505, 2009

    Matthew McKague, Michele Mosca, and Nicolas Gisin. Simulating quantum systems using real Hilbert spaces.Physical Review Letters, 102(2):020505, 2009

    work page 2009

  18. [18]

    Quantum mechanics is *-algebras and tensor networks, 2020

    Andreas Bauer. Quantum mechanics is *-algebras and tensor networks, 2020

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Tensor types and their use in physics

    Andreas Bauer and Alexander Nietner. Tensor types and their use in physics. 2022

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    XLA: Compiling machine learning for peak performance, 2020

    Amit Sabne. XLA: Compiling machine learning for peak performance, 2020. URLhttps: //research.google/pubs/xla-compiling-machine-learning-for-peak-performance/. Google Research

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    TVM: An automated end-to-end optimizing compiler for deep learning

    Tianqi Chen, Thierry Moreau, Ziheng Jiang, Lianmin Zheng, Eddie Yan, Meghan Cowan, Haichen Shen, Leyuan Wang, Yuwei Hu, Luis Ceze, Carlos Guestrin, and Arvind Krishna- murthy. TVM: An automated end-to-end optimizing compiler for deep learning. In13th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), pages 578– 594, 2018

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    PyTorch 2: Faster machine learning through dynamic Python bytecode transformation and graph compilation

    Jason Ansel et al. PyTorch 2: Faster machine learning through dynamic Python bytecode transformation and graph compilation. In29th ACM International Conference on Architec- tural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), pages 929–947, 2024

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Interacting quantum observables: categorical algebra and diagrammatics.New Journal of Physics, 13:043016, 2011

    Bob Coecke and Ross Duncan. Interacting quantum observables: categorical algebra and diagrammatics.New Journal of Physics, 13:043016, 2011. doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/13/4/ 043016

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/13/4/ 2011

  24. [24]

    Cambridge University Press, 2017

    Bob Coecke and Aleks Kissinger.Picturing Quantum Processes: A First Course in Quantum Theory and Diagrammatic Reasoning. Cambridge University Press, 2017

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    The complex gradient operator and the CR-calculus, 2009

    Ken Kreutz-Delgado. The complex gradient operator and the CR-calculus, 2009. 23

    work page 2009

  26. [26]

    Differentiable programming tensor networks.Physical Review X, 9:031041, 2019

    Hai-Jun Liao, Jin-Guo Liu, Lei Wang, and Tao Xiang. Differentiable programming tensor networks.Physical Review X, 9:031041, 2019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031041

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.031041 2019

  27. [27]

    Automatic differentiation for complex valued SVD, 2019

    Zhi-Qin John Wan and Shi-Xin Zhang. Automatic differentiation for complex valued SVD, 2019

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    Use and implementation of autodifferentiation in tensor network methods with complex scalars, 2019

    Claudius Hubig. Use and implementation of autodifferentiation in tensor network methods with complex scalars, 2019

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    Multi-Tensor Contraction for XEB Verification of Quantum Circuits

    Gleb Kalachev, Pavel Panteleev, and Man-Hong Yung. Multi-tensor contraction for XEB verification of quantum circuits.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.05665, 2021

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    OMECO: One more einsum contraction order

    Jinguo Liu. OMECO: One more einsum contraction order. GitHub repository, 2026. URL https://github.com/GiggleLiu/omeco. Rust library for tensor-network contraction-order optimization

    work page 2026

  31. [31]

    Harun Bayraktar, Ali Charara, David Clark, Saul Cohen, Timothy Costa, Yao-Lung L. Fang, Yang Gao, Jack Guan, John Gunnels, Azzam Haidar, Andreas Hehn, Markus Hohnerbach, Matthew Jones, Tom Lubowe, Dmitry Lyakh, Shinya Morino, Paul Springer, Sam Stan- wyck, Igor Terentyev, Satya Varadhan, Jonathan Wong, and Takuma Yamaguchi. cuquan- tum sdk: A high-perform...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    D. F. Robinson. Comparison of labeled trees with valency three.Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, 11(2):105–119, 1971. doi: 10.1016/0095-8956(71)90020-7

    work page doi:10.1016/0095-8956(71)90020-7 1971

  33. [33]

    Yao.jl: Extensible, efficient framework for quantum algorithm design.Quantum, 4:341, 2020

    Xiu-Zhe Luo, Jin-Guo Liu, Pan Zhang, and Lei Wang. Yao.jl: Extensible, efficient framework for quantum algorithm design.Quantum, 4:341, 2020

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    Tensorcircuit: a quantum software framework for the NISQ era.Quantum, 7:912, 2023

    Shi-Xin Zhang, Jonathan Allcock, Zhou-Quan Wan, Shuo Liu, Jiace Sun, Hao Yu, Xing-Han Yang, Jiezhong Qiu, Zhaofeng Ye, Yu-Qin Chen, Chee-Kong Lee, Yi-Cong Zheng, Shao-Kai Jian, Hong Yao, Chang-Yu Hsieh, and Shengyu Zhang. Tensorcircuit: a quantum software framework for the NISQ era.Quantum, 7:912, 2023. 24

    work page 2023

  35. [1992]

    doi: 10.1137/0613043

    work page doi:10.1137/0613043

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.