Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 88 references

Distributed quantum computing with black-box subroutines

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes that distributed quantum computers can execute programs made of arbitrary unknown subroutines, using only Choi-state programs and parity measurements, without decoding or correcting the subroutines.

desk verdict The core idea—composing unknown unitaries via teleportation with discarded byproducts—is plausible and worth engaging, but the central composition formula has a sign error that undercuts the stated universality claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14519 v2 pith:2O23SOHU submitted 2025-05-20 quant-ph cs.ARcs.DC

X. Xu , Y.-D. Liu , S. Shi , Y.-J. Wang , D.-S. Wang This is my paper
classification quant-phcs.ARcs.DC MSC 81P6881P45 PACS 03.67.Lx03.67.Hk
keywords distributedquantumcomputingobliviousteleportationcontrolblack-boxsubroutinesChoi-stateprogramssuperchannelscircuit-depthreduction
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

Distributed quantum computers, the paper argues, do not need to know what a subroutine does in order to run it. The authors propose a universal protocol in which arbitrary unknown subroutines are stored as Choi states and composed by oblivious quantum teleportation and oblivious quantum control, with only parity measurements and no correction of teleportation byproducts. If the central recurrence is right, this lets multi-chip machines execute black-box programs with less communication, allows a space-time tradeoff that lowers circuit depth, and extends to unknown channels via quantum superchannels. The authors also argue the required measurements and gates are within reach of current superconducting, trapped-ion, cold-atom, and photonic platforms.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the Choi-state program $|U\rangle = (U\otimes \mathbb{1})|\omega\rangle$, which stores an unknown operation in a bipartite state, together with the indirect binary Bell measurement $\{P_0=|\omega\rangle\langle\omega|,\ P_1=\mathbb{1}-|\omega\rangle\langle\omega|\}$ that underlies oblivious program execution and OQT. Grouping Pauli byproducts into trivial and nontrivial parity converts teleportation into an oblivious operation with the two-branch output of Eq. (13), and iterating yields the outcome-count recurrence of Eqs. (14) and (15). The same ebit $|\omega\rangle$, as an eigenstate of $U\otimes U^*$, serves as the flag that makes OQC possible, supplying the controlled version of an unknown gate without a separately known eigenstate.

What would settle it

A direct two-step calculation for $d=2$: apply Eq. (13) first for $U_1$ and then for $U_2$ with one nontrivial outcome, and compare the coefficient of $U_2U_1\psi U_1^\dagger U_2^\dagger$ in the resulting density operator with Eq. (14). If the coefficient is $-1/(d^2-1)^2$ rather than $+1/(d^2-1)^2$, the recurrence as stated fails and a parity correction is required; equivalently, a numerical simulation of two sequential OQT runs measuring an observable on $U_2U_1|\psi\rangle$ would reveal the discrepancy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that unknown unitary subroutines can be composed and evaluated without ever being decoded. The paper introduces oblivious quantum teleportation (OQT), which replaces the full Bell measurement of ordinary teleportation with an indirect binary Bell measurement that only records whether the Pauli byproduct is trivial or nontrivial; the trivial branch delivers $U|\psi\rangle$, and the nontrivial branch delivers a depolarized state $\frac{1}{d^2-1}(d\mathbb{1}-U\psi U^\dagger)$, from which the same observable statistics can be extracted. Iterated over a sequence $U_n\cdots U_1$, the paper claims the output depends only on the number of nontrivial outcomes, not their positions or identities, giving $\alpha\mathbb{1} + U(\psi)/(d^2-1)^s$ for even $n$ and $\beta\mathbb{1} - U(\psi)/(d^2-1)^s$ for odd $n$. The companion oblivious quantum control (OQC) scheme realizes $\wedge U$ for unknown $U$ by using the ebit $|\omega\rangle$, an eigenstate of $U\otimes U^*$, as a natural flag, and combining these gives a distributed black-box quantum computing protocol (DBQC) that evaluates observables of $U|\psi\rangle$ across physically separated chips.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol's universality depends on the exact sign and prefactor of the useful term in the teleported state after an even number of steps: if that term comes out with the opposite sign, every observable estimate would need a correction the paper does not provide.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A subroutine held by one party can be executed inside a computation running on another party's chip without uploading the subroutine's classical description or correcting its teleportation byproducts, reducing communication to shared ebits and reported measurement parities.
  • Because the OQT output depends only on the number of nontrivial parity outcomes, a sequence of unknown programs can be composed in parallel, and teleporting the computation to fresh qubits trades space for reduced circuit depth.
  • OQC turns unknown unitaries into controlled operations, making DQC1, amplitude amplification, and LCU-based superpositions oblivious, so they can estimate quantities such as $\operatorname{tr}(U\rho)\operatorname{tr}(U^*\eta)$ even when $U$ is unknown.
  • Via channel-state duality and the superchannel formalism, the protocol extends from unitaries to non-unitary channels, so unknown-channel estimation and sequential channel discrimination can be broken into parallel transversal steps.
  • In the multiparty setting, the protocol realizes a weak, passive-adversary form of oblivious transfer of quantum information, though the paper notes that malicious participants who send wrong measurement outcomes can break it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the sign in Eq. (14) is correct, OQT gives a conceptually simple, parameter-free way to concatenate unknown channels; this suggests a direct experimental test on two-qubit platforms where the parity measurement can be implemented without the full three-qubit Toffoli gate.
  • One can read the protocol as a resource identity: each OQT step costs one ebit and one parity measurement, so communication cost scales with the number of black-box subroutines rather than with the classical length of their gate decompositions.
  • Combining OQT with randomized measurements would turn the scheme into a black-box subroutine version of the Hadamard test, estimating $\langle\psi|U_2U_1|\psi\rangle$ for two unknown gates with only a few ebits and no decoding.
  • The gap between honest-but-curious and malicious security suggests that adding lightweight verification, such as test programs with known outputs, could upgrade DBQC toward secure multiparty quantum computation, an extension the paper leaves open.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework for distributed quantum computing in which subroutines are black-box and supplied as Choi states. Three primitives are introduced: oblivious program execution (OPE), oblivious quantum teleportation (OQT), and oblivious quantum control (OQC). OQT is claimed to compose an arbitrary sequence of unknown unitaries while leaving only a depolarizing offset whose parity determines the sign of the recovered U|ψ⟩⟨ψ|U† term; Eqs. (14)-(15) give the composed form. The paper also constructs oblivious versions of DQC1, amplitude amplification, and state superposition, discusses physical realization on matter-qubit and photonic platforms, and sketches a multi-party distributed protocol. The central technical claim is that these primitives allow observable statistics of compositions of unknown subroutines to be evaluated without learning or correcting byproducts.

Significance. If the composition formula is repaired, the framework is a conceptually useful unification of channel-state duality, teleportation, and twirling, and the paper correctly identifies that the signal-to-offset ratio decays as (d²-1)^{-s}. The derivations have no fitted parameters and rely on standard results, which is a strength; the physical-implementation discussion and the comparison table provide useful context. However, the load-bearing composition formula is currently wrong as stated, and OQC and the general protocol are only asserted schematically, so the claimed universality is not established in the present version.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eqs. (14)-(15)] Equations (14)-(15) are not consequences of Eq. (13). Iterating the single-step rule for U = U2U1 with exactly one nontrivial outcome (s = 1) gives (d I - U ψ U†)/(d² - 1), whether the nontrivial measurement occurs on the first or the second teleportation; the coefficient of U ψ U† is -1/(d² - 1), whereas Eq. (14) for even n requires +1/(d² - 1). The general recurrence for the signal coefficient is (-1)^s/(d² - 1)^s, so the two forms should be labelled by the parity of s, not by the parity of n. As a check, for d = 2, U1 = U2 = I, |ψ⟩ = |0⟩, the two-step outcome (P1, P0) gives diag(1/3, 2/3), which has the odd-s minus sign and contradicts Eq. (14). Eq. (15) is also wrong for s = 0 and odd n, where the final state is U ψ U†, not β I - U ψ U†. Since the claimed universality of OQT and every observable estimate extracted from the final state depend on the exact sign and prefactor of the signal term, this must be corrected and explicitly derived in the revision.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eq. (17) and Fig. 3] The oblivious quantum control primitive is asserted rather than constructed. The text states that (U ⊗ U*)|ω⟩ = |ω⟩ and that this 'naturally satisfies' the flag condition, and then says 'it is clear to see U ↦ ∧U is realized in the proper subspace'. No circuit or derivation is given for how the eigenstate is used to produce the controlled operation P0 ⊗ I + P1 ⊗ U on the data register. Because OQC is the basis for ODQC1 and OQS, this missing construction is load-bearing; the revision should provide an explicit circuit or a formal proof, or clearly reproduce the construction it relies on.
  3. [Sec. VII B (general protocol)] The manuscript promises a universal distributed quantum computing protocol, but Sec. VII B is only a schematic description: it refers to a quantum superchannel, a classical optimizer, and a space-time tradeoff without stating a theorem about which tasks are realized, how OQT composition behaves for heterogeneous local dimensions, or what the communication and resource costs are. The two-party and tri-party examples in Sec. VII A do not constitute a universality proof. Please add a precise statement of the protocol's input/output, correctness condition, and overhead, or explicitly restrict the claimed scope.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (13)] The notation 'd1' in Eq. (13) should be written as d I (or d 1 with the identity explicitly indicated); as printed it looks like a scalar d1.
  2. [Sec. VI A, around Fig. 10] The statement that 'the minimal number of samples is two' is unexplained; please specify what is being counted and why two is minimal in the space-time tradeoff.
  3. [Sec. I] There is a typo in the list of protocol features: 'Forth' should be 'Fourth'.
  4. [Sec. V A] The claim that 'for two unknown states |ψ⟩ and |ϕ⟩, there is no algorithm to compute ⟨ψ|ϕ⟩' needs a qualifier, since the SWAP test can estimate |⟨ψ|ϕ⟩|² from copies; the intended statement is presumably about deterministic exact computation without additional assumptions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the OQT/OQC derivations are self-contained, and the extensive self-citations are independent published results; the Eq. (14) parity problem is a correctness issue, not a circular one.

full rationale

The central protocol is derived from physical identities already established in the paper or in standard theory: Eq. (13) is obtained by grouping Pauli byproducts in ordinary teleportation into 'trivial' and 'nontrivial' sets, with the equal-weight nontrivial Pauli channel producing (d1 - UψU†)/(d^2-1); Eq. (17) follows from the ebit identity (U ⊗ U*)|ω⟩ = |ω⟩; and the composition claim in Eqs. (14)-(15) is presented as an iteration of Eq. (13). There are no fitted parameters, no training subset, and no quantity whose definition already contains the predicted observable. The self-citations (notably Refs. [8,37,39]) are published, externally checkable, and their stated assumptions do not include the present protocol's conclusion; hence under the review rules they are genuine evidence and do not create circularity. The manuscript also states its own limitations, such as signal decay for large s, passive-adversary security only, and inability to tolerate malicious participants, which are acknowledged open issues rather than premises that smuggle in the results. The reader-flagged sign inconsistency between Eq. (13) and the parity labels in Eqs. (14)-(15) is a mathematical-consistency and correctness concern: iterating Eq. (13) gives a U-term coefficient of (-1)^s/(d^2-1)^s, so the parity label may need to be s rather than n; however, this is not circularity, because the composition formula is asserted as a consequence of Eq. (13), not as an input. Overall, no load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own inputs; a low nonzero score reflects the presence of non-load-bearing self-citation rather than any true circularity.

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

The protocol introduces no fitted constants and no new physical entities. Its correctness rests on standard quantum information theorems (channel-state duality, Stinespring dilation, Pauli twirling) and on two no-go theorems it aims to bypass. The central technical resources, Choi states and ebits, are already established in the literature.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Channel-state duality: a channel E can be represented as a Choi state ω_E = E⊗1(ω), and a unitary U as |U⟩=(U⊗1)|ω⟩.
    Used in Eq. (3) and throughout the paper to store subroutines as Choi program states.
  • standard math Stinespring dilation: any CPTP channel can be realized by a unitary with an ancilla, giving Kraus operators K_i = ⟨i|U|0⟩.
    Invoked in Eq. (2) to justify focusing on unitary programs and to extend results to channels.
  • domain assumption No-programming theorem: a deterministic universal quantum program cannot execute an arbitrary unitary U without knowing U.
    Motivates the ISI bypass in Sec. II; the paper relies on this theorem to claim its protocol circumvents it.
  • domain assumption No-control theorem: unknown U cannot be converted to controlled-U without a flag state.
    Sec. IV relies on this theorem and on the flag condition; the ebit eigenstate Eq. (17) is used as the flag.
  • standard math Pauli twirl identity: ∑_{i=0}^{d^2-1} σ_i A σ_i = d tr(A) 1, with the identity term singled out.
    Underlies Eq. (13) for the non-trivial branch of OQT.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Distributed quantum computing with black-box subroutines." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2O23SOHU

@misc{pith2026250514519,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Distributed quantum computing with black-box subroutines},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2O23SOHU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14519}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we propose a general protocol for distributed quantum computing that accommodates arbitrary unknown subroutines. It can be applied to scale up quantum computing through multi-chip interconnection, as well as to tasks such as estimating unknown parameters or processes for circuit depth reduction and constructing secure quantum cryptographic protocols. Our protocol builds upon a few techniques we develop, such as the oblivious quantum teleportation and control, which can circumvent quantum no-go theorems on the manipulation of unknown objects. Furthermore, we demonstrate that this protocol can be physically implemented using currently available quantum computing platforms. These results suggest that our framework could provide a foundation for developing more advanced quantum algorithms and protocols in the future.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14519 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Choi program state and the initial-state injec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The standard quantum teleportation by Bell mea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The oblivious quantum control scheme: our method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The circuit for amplitude amplification (AA) algo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Circuit to realize the Toffoli gate with three CNOTs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The schematic for a distributed quantum computing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The schematic for the realization with OQT or [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The schematic for a multi-party distributed obliv [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A schematic to illustrate the space-time tradeoff in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Transmit bits with classical means; this is the stan- dard classical cryptography

  2. [2]

    Transmit bits with quantum means; this is the quantum cryptography

  3. [3]

    Transmit qubits with entanglement-assisted means; this refers to quantum cryptography of quantum in- formation but with possible entanglement or clas- sical correlations as assistance, for instance, the commitment of qubits, or known as qubit commit- ment [83]

  4. [4]

    Transmit qubits with purely quantum means. From the perspective of channel capacity [84], with no surprise, the protocols above correspond to the classi- cal capacity of classical channel, the private (or secure) capacity of quantum channel, the entanglement-assisted quantum capacity of quantum channel, and quantum ca- pacity of quantum channel, respectiv...

  5. [5]

    T. D. Ladd, F. Jelezko, R. Laflamme, Y. Nakamura, C. Monroe, J. L. O’Brien, Quantum computers, Nature 464 (7285) (2010) 45–53

    2010

  6. [6]

    M. A. Nielsen, I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge U.K., 2000

    2000

  7. [7]

    Wang, Universal quantum computing models: a perspective of resource theory, Acta Phys

    D.-S. Wang, Universal quantum computing models: a perspective of resource theory, Acta Phys. Sin. 73 (2024) 220302

    2024

  8. [8]

    Caleffi, M

    M. Caleffi, M. Amoretti, D. Ferrari, et al., Distributed quantum computing: a survey, Computer Networks 254 (2024) 110672

    2024

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Barral, F

    D. Barral, F. J. Cardama, G. D ´ ıaz-Camacho, et al., Re- view of distributed quantum computing: From single QPU to high performance quantum computing, Com- puter Science Review 57 (2025) 100747

    2025

  2. [10]

    Broadbent, J

    A. Broadbent, J. Fitzsimons, E. Kashefi, Universal blind quantum computation, in: in Proceedings of the 50th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, 2009), 2009, pp. 517–527

    2009

  3. [11]

    M. A. Nielsen, I. L. Chuang, Programmable quantum gate arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 321–324

    1997

  4. [12]

    Wang, Choi states, symmetry-based quantum gate teleportation, and stored-program quantum computing, Phys

    D.-S. Wang, Choi states, symmetry-based quantum gate teleportation, and stored-program quantum computing, Phys. Rev. A 101 (2020) 052311

    2020

  5. [13]

    Y. Yang, R. Renner, G. Chiribella, Optimal univer- sal programming of unitary gates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 210501

    2020

  6. [14]

    Wang, A family of quantum von Neumann archi- tecture, Chin

    D.-S. Wang, A family of quantum von Neumann archi- tecture, Chin. Phys. B 33 (2024) 080302

    2024

  7. [15]

    Avron, O

    J. Avron, O. Casper, I. Rozen, Quantum advantage and noise reduction in distributed quantum computing, Phys. Rev. A 104 (2021) 052404

    2021

  8. [16]

    D. Qiu, L. Luo, L. Xiao, Distributed Grover’s algorithm, Theoretical Computer Science 993 (2024) 114461

    2024

  9. [17]

    H. Tang, B. Li, G. Wang, H. Xu, C. Li, A. Barr, P. Cap- pellaro, J. Li, Communication-efficient quantum algo- rithm for distributed machine learning, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023) 150602

    2023

  10. [18]

    S. C. Marshall, C. Gyurik, V. Dunjko, High dimensional quantum machine learning with small quantum comput- ers, Quantum 7 (2023) 1078

    2023

  11. [19]

    Hwang, H.-T

    K. Hwang, H.-T. Lim, Y.-S. Kim, D. K. Park, Y. Kim, Distributed quantum machine learning via classical com- munication, Quantum Science and Technology 10 (1) (2024) 015059

    2024

  12. [20]

    Piveteau, D

    C. Piveteau, D. Sutter, Circuit knitting with classical communication, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 70 (2023) 3310797

    2023

  13. [21]

    Ufrecht, M

    C. Ufrecht, M. Periyasamy, S. Rietsch, D. D. Scherer, A. Plinge, C. Mutschler, Cutting multi-control quantum gates with zx calculus, Quantum 7 (2023) 1147

    2023

  14. [22]

    A. Lowe, M. Medvidovi´ c, A. Hayes, et al., Fast quantum circuit cutting with randomized measurements, Quantum 7 (2023) 934

    2023

  15. [23]

    J. Qiu, Y. Liu, L. Hu, et. al, Deterministic quantum state and gate teleportation between distant superconducting chips, Science Bulletin 70 (3) (2025) 351–358

    2025

  16. [24]

    Almanakly, B

    A. Almanakly, B. Yankelevich, M. Hays, et al., Determin- istic remote entanglement using a chiral quantum inter- connect, Nat. Phys.Https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-025- 02811-1 (2025)

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    A. M. Gomez, T. L. Patti, A. Anandkumar, S. F. Yelin, Near-term distributed quantum computation us- ing mean-field corrections and auxiliary qubits, Quantum Sci. Technol. 9 (2024) 035022

    2024

  18. [26]

    Andres-Martinez, T

    P. Andres-Martinez, T. Forrer, D. Mills, et al., Distribut- ing circuits over heterogeneous, modular quantum com- puting network architectures, Quantum Sci. Technol. 9 (2024) 045021

    2024

  19. [27]

    Luo, Y.-Z

    T.-Y. Luo, Y.-Z. Zheng, X. Fu, Y.-X. Deng, Automatic architecture design for distributed quantum computing, Chinese Phys. B 33 (2024) 120302

    2024

  20. [28]

    Hayashi, Quantum Information Theory: Mathemati- cal Foundation, 2nd edition, Springer, 2017

    M. Hayashi, Quantum Information Theory: Mathemati- cal Foundation, 2nd edition, Springer, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    D. M. Harris, S. L. Harris, Digital design and computer architecture, Elsevier, 2013

    2013

  22. [30]

    J. Katz, Y. Lindell (Eds.), Introduction to Modern Cryp- tography, Chapman and Hall/CRC (New York), 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, R. D. Somma, Exponential improvement in precision for simu- lating sparse hamiltonians, in: Proc. 46th ACM Sympo- sium on Theory of Computing, 2014, p. 283

    2014

  24. [32]

    D. T. Stephen, D.-S. Wang, A. Prakash, T.-C. Wei, R. Raussendorf, Computational power of symmetry- protected topological phases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 010504

    2017

  25. [33]

    W. K. Wootters, W. H. Zurek, A single quantum cannot be cloned, Nature 299 (1982) 802–803

    1982

  26. [34]

    Dieks, Communication by EPR devices, Phys

    D. Dieks, Communication by EPR devices, Phys. Lett. A 92 (1982) 271

    1982

  27. [35]

    Mayers, Unconditionally secure quantum bit commit- ment is impossible, Phys

    D. Mayers, Unconditionally secure quantum bit commit- ment is impossible, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 3414–3417

    1997

  28. [36]

    H.-K. Lo, H. F. Chau, Is quantum bit commitment really possible?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 3410–3413

    1997

  29. [37]

    Araujo, A

    M. Araujo, A. Feix, F. Costa, C. Brukner, Quantum cir- cuits cannot control unknown operations, New J. Phys. 15 16 (2014) 093026

    2014

  30. [38]

    Oszmaniec, A

    M. Oszmaniec, A. Grudka, M. Horodecki, A. W´ ojcik, Creating a superposition of unknown quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 110403

    2016

  31. [39]

    Thompson, K

    J. Thompson, K. Modi, V. Vedral, M. Gu, Quantum plug n’ play: modular computation in the quantum regime, New J. Phys. 20 (2018) 013004

    2018

  32. [40]

    Wehner, C

    S. Wehner, C. Schaffner, B. M. Terhal, Cryptography from noisy storage, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 220502

    2008

  33. [41]

    Wang, A prototype of quantum von Neumann ar- chitecture, Commun

    D.-S. Wang, A prototype of quantum von Neumann ar- chitecture, Commun. Theor. Phys. 74 (2022) 095103

    2022

  34. [42]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, P. Perinotti, Transform- ing quantum operations: Quantum supermaps, Euro- phys. Lett. 83 (2008) 30004

    2008

  35. [43]

    Y.-T. Liu, K. Wang, Y.-D. Liu, D.-S. Wang, A Survey of Universal Quantum von Neumann Architecture, Entropy 25 (8) (2023) 1187

    2023

  36. [44]

    Kraus, States, Effects, and Operations: Fundamental Notions of Quantum Theory, Vol

    K. Kraus, States, Effects, and Operations: Fundamental Notions of Quantum Theory, Vol. 190 of Lecture Notes in Physics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983

    1983

  37. [45]

    Choi, Completely positive linear maps on complex matrices, Linear Algebra Appl

    M.-D. Choi, Completely positive linear maps on complex matrices, Linear Algebra Appl. 10 (1975) 285–290

    1975

  38. [46]

    Jamio lkowski, Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators, Rep

    A. Jamio lkowski, Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators, Rep. Math. Phys. 3 (1972) 275

    1972

  39. [47]

    Wang, Weak, strong, and uniform quantum simu- lations, Phys

    D.-S. Wang, Weak, strong, and uniform quantum simu- lations, Phys. Rev. A 91 (2015) 012334

    2015

  40. [48]

    Yoshida, A

    S. Yoshida, A. Soeda, M. Murao, Reversing unknown qubit-unitary operation, deterministically and exactly, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 120602

    2023

  41. [49]

    Y. Mo, L. Zhang, Y. A. Chen, et al., Parameterized quan- tum comb and simpler circuits for reversing unknown qubit-unitary operations, npj Quantum Inf. 11 (2025) 32

    2025

  42. [50]

    Aharonov, A simple proof that toffoli and hadamard are quantum universal, arXiv preprint arXiv:0301040 (2003)

    D. Aharonov, A simple proof that toffoli and hadamard are quantum universal, arXiv preprint arXiv:0301040 (2003)

    2003

  43. [51]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Cr´ epeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, W. K. Wootters, Teleporting an unknown quan- tum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 1895–1899

    1993

  44. [52]

    Gottesman, I

    D. Gottesman, I. L. Chuang, Demonstrating the viabil- ity of universal quantum computation using teleportation and single-qubit operations, Nature 402 (6760) (1999) 390–393

    1999

  45. [53]

    Bravyi, A

    S. Bravyi, A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Phys. Rev. A 71 (2005) 022316

    2005

  46. [54]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, Power of one bit of quantum in- formation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 5672–5675

    1998

  47. [55]

    Kitaev, A

    A. Kitaev, A. H. Shen, M. N. Vyalyi, Classical and Quan- tum Computation, Vol. 47 of Graduate Studies in Math- ematics, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 2002

    2002

  48. [56]

    P. W. Shor, Algorithms for quantum computation: dis- crete logarithms and factoring, in: Proceedings 35th annual symposium on foundations of computer science, IEEE, 1994, pp. 124–134

    1994

  49. [57]

    Buhrman, R

    H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, J. Watrous, R. de Wolf, Quantum fingerprinting, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 167902

    2001

  50. [58]

    Brassard, P

    G. Brassard, P. Hoyer, M. Mosca, A. Tapp, Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation, Contem. Math- emat. 305 (2002) 53–74

    2002

  51. [59]

    Gilyen, Y

    A. Gilyen, Y. Su, G. H. Low, N. Wiebe, Quantum sin- gular value transformation and beyond: exponential im- provements for quantum matrix arithmetics, in: Proceed- ings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, 2019

    2019

  52. [60]

    G. L. Long, Duality quantum computing and duality quantum information processing, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 50 (2011) 1305

    2011

  53. [61]

    D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, R. D. Somma, Simulating hamiltonian dynamics with a trun- cated taylor series, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 090502

    2015

  54. [62]

    Levine, A

    H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, H. Bernien, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, H. Pichler, M. D. Lukin, Parallel implementation of high- fidelity multiqubit gates with neutral atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 170503

    2019

  55. [63]

    Khazali, K

    M. Khazali, K. Mølmer, Fast multiqubit gates by adia- batic evolution in interacting excited-state manifolds of rydberg atoms and superconducting circuits, Phys. Rev. X 10 (2020) 021054

    2020

  56. [64]

    Y. Kim, A. Morvan, L. B. Nguyen, R. K. Naik, C. J¨ unger, L. Chen, J. M. Kreikebaum, D. I. Santiago, I. Siddiqi, High-fidelity three-qubit itoffoli gate for fixed-frequency superconducting qubits, Nat. Phys. 18 (2022) 783

    2022

  57. [65]

    Barenco, C

    A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin, H. We- infurter, Elementary gates for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 52 (5) (1995) 3457

    1995

  58. [66]

    Saeedi, I

    M. Saeedi, I. Markov, Synthesis and optimization of re- versible circuits-a survey, ACM Comput. Surv. 45 (2013) 21

    2013

  59. [67]

    R. Iten, R. Colbeck, I. Kukuljan, J. Home, M. Christandl, Quantum circuits for isometries, Phys. Rev. A 93 (2016) 032318

    2016

  60. [68]

    B. J. Brown, D. Loss, J. K. Pachos, C. N. Self, J. R. Wootton, Quantum memories at finite temperature, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88 (2016) 045005

    2016

  61. [69]

    Stastny, G

    S. Stastny, G. Burkard, The singlet-triplet and exchange-only flopping-mode spin qubits, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.05032 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  62. [70]

    W. C. Burton, B. Estey, I. M. Hoffman, A. R. Perry, C. Volin, G. Price, Transport of multispecies ion crystals through a junction in a radio-frequency paul trap, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023) 173202

    2023

  63. [71]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, et al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature 626 (2024) 58

    2024

  64. [72]

    Raussendorf, H

    R. Raussendorf, H. J. Briegel, A one-way quantum com- puter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 5188–5191

    2001

  65. [73]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, G. Milburn, A scheme for effi- cient quantum computation with linear optics, Nature 409 (2001) 46

    2001

  66. [74]

    D. E. Browne, T. Rudolph, Resource-efficient linear op- tical quantum computation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 010501

    2005

  67. [75]

    AbuGhanem, Photonic quantum computers, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08229 (2024)

    M. AbuGhanem, Photonic quantum computers, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08229 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    M. Reck, A. Zeilinger, H. J. Bernstein, P. Bertani, Ex- perimental realization of any discrete unitary operator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73 (1994) 58–61

    1994

  69. [77]

    X. Zhou, D. W. Leung, I. L. Chuang, Methodology for quantum logic gate construction, Phys. Rev. A 62 (2000) 052316

    2000

  70. [78]

    C. K. Hong, Z. Y. Ou, L. Mandel, Measurement of sub- picosecond time intervals between two photons by inter- ference, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 (1987) 2044–2046. 16

    1987

  71. [79]

    ˙Zukowski, A

    M. ˙Zukowski, A. Zeilinger, M. A. Horne, Realizable higher-dimensional two-particle entanglements via mul- tiport beam splitters, Phys. Rev. A 55 (1997) 2564–2579

    1997

  72. [80]

    M. C. Tichy, M. Tiersch, F. de Melo, F. Mintert, A. Buch- leitner, Zero-transmission law for multiport beam split- ters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 220405

    2010

  73. [81]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, P. Perinotti, Memory effects in quantum channel discrimination, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 180501

    2008

  74. [82]

    Hayashi, Oblivious quantum computation and dele- gated multiparty quantum computation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.00962 (2022)

    M. Hayashi, Oblivious quantum computation and dele- gated multiparty quantum computation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.00962 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Morris, V

    J. Morris, V. Saggio, A. Gocanin, B. Dakic, Quantum verification and estimation with few copies, Adv. Quan- tum Technol. 5 (2022) 2100118

    2022

  76. [84]

    Cr´ epeau, D

    C. Cr´ epeau, D. Gottesman, A. Smith, Secure multi-party quantum computation, in: In STOC ’02: Proc. 34rd An- nual ACM Symp. Theory of Computing, 2002, p. 643

    2002

  77. [85]

    Sebastian, M

    A. Sebastian, M. Le Gallo, R. Khaddam-Aljameh, et al., Memory devices and applications for in-memory comput- ing, Nat. Nanotechnol. 15 (2020) 529

    2020

  78. [86]

    Wang, D.-S

    K. Wang, D.-S. Wang, Quantum circuit simulation of superchannels, New J. Phys. 25 (4) (2023) 043013

    2023

  79. [87]

    K. Modi, A. K. Pati, A. Sen(De), U. Sen, Masking quantum information is impossible, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 230501

    2018

  80. [88]

    Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Information, Cam- bridge University Press, 2018

    J. Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Information, Cam- bridge University Press, 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.