Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Scaling Portfolio Diversification with Quantum Circuit Cutting Techniques

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Automatic gate cutting lets a 71-qubit QAOA circuit be evaluated on smaller hardware and produces competitive portfolio diversification.

desk verdict A well-engineered circuit-cutting pipeline with a real 71-qubit QAOA demo, but the noise-resilience claim and the headline Max-Cut comparison lack validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08947 v1 pith:CZRWLJ6U submitted 2025-06-10 quant-ph

Vicente P. Soloviev , Antonio Márquez Romero , Josh Kirsopp , Michal Krompiec This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords QAOAcircuitcuttinggatequasiprobabilitydecompositionportfoliodiversificationMax-CuttensornetworksS&P500
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

QuantCut is an automatic pipeline that cuts entangling two-qubit gates out of a quantum circuit, runs the resulting smaller subcircuits on fewer qubits, and classically reassembles the measured expectation value. The authors apply it to a 71-qubit Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) circuit for diversifying S&P 500 stocks, a width that would exceed typical hardware limits if executed directly. On that instance their one-layer QAOA reaches a Max-Cut score of 43.41, beating random sampling's 26.1 but trailing the classical evolutionary algorithm's 46.51, and they expect additional layers to close the gap. In noisy 10-qubit Max-Cut simulations, cutting improves QAOA convergence for two and three layers, which they take as evidence that cutting can also act as error mitigation. The paper's claim is that automatic gate cutting is a practical way to evaluate large QAOA circuits on limited hardware and to make a 71-qubit financial optimization tractable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the quasiprobability decomposition of a two-qubit entangling gate. KAK decomposition writes the gate as local unitaries around a commuting interaction $\exp(i(a_X X\otimes X + a_Y Y\otimes Y + a_Z Z\otimes Z))$; cutting that interaction replaces it with six single-qubit channels $F_i$ and signed coefficients $a_i$, giving $U=\sum_i a_i F_i$ and turning one entangling gate into six subexperiments. QuantCut wraps this identity in an automatic cut finder that minimizes the number of cut gates subject to a maximum subcircuit qubit count, and a postprocessor that recombines measured expectation values. The tensor-network matrix product state backend then extracts the largest-amplitude basis state from the cut 71-qubit circuit for solution recovery.

What would settle it

Run the same QuantCut QAOA pipeline on the identical 71-asset graph with two and three QAOA layers: if Max-Cut does not move toward or above the classical evolutionary algorithm's 46.51, the paper's stated expectation that more layers close the gap is contradicted on its own benchmark.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

QuantCut represents any two-qubit entangling gate through the KAK decomposition as local single-qubit operations surrounding a commuting Pauli interaction, then replaces that interaction term by a six-channel quasiprobability identity $U=\sum_{i=1}^6 a_i F_i$, where each $F_i$ uses only single-qubit operations plus one measurement. An automatic search minimizes the number of gates that must be cut while keeping every subcircuit within a user-supplied qubit budget, and the postprocessor generates the subexperiments and recombines their expectation values. Applied to a 71-qubit, one-layer QAOA ansatz for portfolio diversification, with three gate cuts per layer, the framework yields a best partition of the 71-asset correlation graph with Max-Cut value 43.41, versus 26.1 for random sampling and 46.51 for a classical evolutionary algorithm. In the 10-qubit readout-noise toy model, the cut circuits converge better than uncut circuits at two and three layers. The authors take these results as evidence that automatic gate cutting can place large QAOA circuits within reach of limited hardware while preserving, and sometimes improving, solution quality under noise.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the financial goal of diversification is faithfully captured by one specific graph—71 hand-selected S&P 500 assets, edges drawn when a correlation threshold of $\alpha = 0.2$ is exceeded—and that finding a split maximizing the weighted cut on that graph is the right optimization target; the paper does not state how those 71 assets were selected.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A QAOA circuit wider than the available qubit register can still be evaluated by cutting entangling gates; the cost is an exponential growth in subexperiments with the number of cuts.
  • Circuit cutting can serve as an error-mitigation layer: in the paper's readout-noise simulations, cutting improved QAOA convergence at two and three layers, consistent with earlier quasiprobability results.
  • On the 71-asset S&P 500 instance, the one-layer QuantCut QAOA beat random sampling and approached the classical evolutionary algorithm, with the paper predicting that more layers will further narrow the gap.
  • The pipeline is operator-agnostic: because QuantCut reconstructs expectation values of any supplied Hamiltonian, the same cutting workflow transfers from Max-Cut to other QAOA or variational objectives.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 71-qubit comparison is made at $p=1$; a decisive check of the paper's own expectation is to run $p=2$ and $p=3$ on the same 71-asset graph and see whether Max-Cut climbs toward the EA's 46.51.
  • The automatic cut finder treats all cuts as equal, minimizing only their number; an extension that weights cuts by noise rate or reconstruction variance could find cheaper, more accurate partitions than the current scheme.
  • Because the objective graph depends on the $\alpha=0.2$ correlation threshold and the unstated choice of 71 assets, the framework's general value would be better separated from this financial instance by repeating the run across thresholds and asset-selection rules.
  • Gate-cutting overhead is exponential in the number of cuts while QAOA depth adds entangling gates per layer, so at some depth the number of subexperiments will dominate runtime; the practical scaling limit of QuantCut with layer count is an open question.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces QuantCut, an automatic gate-cutting framework for quantum circuits. QuantCut finds cut locations with an estimation-of-distribution algorithm, generates the corresponding subcircuit experiments, and reconstructs expectation values through the quasi-probability decomposition of Mitarai and Fujii. The authors apply QuantCut to QAOA for Max-Cut problems: first on a 10-qubit noisy toy model with readout noise only, comparing cutting versus no cutting for p=1,2,3 layers, and then on a 71-qubit portfolio-diversification instance built from S&P 500 data. For the 71-qubit case, QAOA with p=1 and three gate cuts per layer achieves a Max-Cut value of 43.41, versus 46.51 for a classical evolutionary algorithm and 26.1 for random sampling. The paper concludes that QuantCut effectively facilitates large-scale quantum computations and may improve resilience to quantum noise.

Significance. If the central claims were fully supported, the paper would be a useful contribution: it presents a modular automatic circuit-cutting workflow, connects it to the QAOA optimization loop, and demonstrates a 71-qubit QAOA instance with tensor-network-based solution extraction. The gate-cutting algebra in Eq. (4)-(5) and Appendix A is sound and correctly attributed to Mitarai and Fujii, and the automatic cut-finder formulation is a reasonable engineering contribution. However, the evidence for the main claims is incomplete: there is no noiseless validation of the cutting reconstruction, the noisy comparison has no statistical error bars and is described in a self-contradictory way, and the provenance of the headline 71-qubit result is underspecified. The paper is therefore promising but requires substantial revision before the conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.1, Fig. 7, Eq. (13)] The noise-resilience claim is not supported by the presented experiment. The text reports 'a consistent improvement in circuit cutting accuracy' but then immediately states that for the single-layer configuration circuit cutting is inferior to its uncut counterpart, which is a direct contradiction or at least an unexplained exception that must be addressed. More fundamentally, the experiment uses only the readout error channel of Eq. (13), shows single trajectories without error bars, and provides no noiseless cut-versus-uncut comparison on the same circuits. Because the gate-cutting protocol in Appendix A introduces mid-circuit projective measurements in subexperiments 3-6, a readout-only noise model is insufficient to establish that cutting is beneficial under realistic device noise. Please add repeated noise realizations with error bars and a noiseless exact validation of the reconstruction.
  2. [Sec. 5.2, Table 1, Sec. 4.4] The headline result, Max-Cut 43.41 for the 71-qubit instance, has underspecified provenance. The QAOA parameters are optimized using QuantCut-reconstructed expectation values, but nowhere is the reconstruction validated against exact expectation values for a circuit where exact simulation is feasible. Moreover, the final solution is extracted via an MPS-based sampling procedure whose bond dimension and convergence criteria are not disclosed. Consequently, the reader cannot tell whether 43.41 reflects the optimization of the true Max-Cut objective or an artifact of the cutting reconstruction or the tensor-network approximation. Please report the MPS parameters, validate the reconstructed expectation values on smaller circuits, and state whether the reported value is the best found over multiple runs or a single trajectory.
  3. [Sec. 4.1, Appendix B] The financial benchmark is not reproducible as specified. The 71 assets are described only as 'carefully selected' without any selection criteria, and the threshold alpha=0.2 is called 'empirically adjusted' without stating the adjustment procedure. It is also ambiguous whether the threshold applies to the Pearson correlation coefficients of Eq. (26) or to the covariance matrix of the standardized data described in Appendix B, though the two coincide for standardized data if the covariance matrix is used. Because the Max-Cut objective and hence Table 1 depend on these choices, the comparison between QAOA, the evolutionary algorithm, and random sampling is only meaningful for this particular graph. Please specify the asset-selection criteria, the threshold-selection protocol, and the exact quantity being thresholded.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 5.1] The text refers to the 'Max-Cut problem (Section 9)'; this should be Eq. (9) or Section 4.2.
  2. [Sec. 4.2] The sentence 'Each of the edges in the graph involves either a combination of two (i) CX gates, or a (ii) CRZ gate' is unclear: it does not explain how the edge weights wij of Eq. (9) are encoded in the circuit parameters or gate angles.
  3. [Sec. 4.4] The text says 'we sample the QAOA circuit and compute the associated amplitudes' while the conclusions say solutions are obtained 'by sampling the circuits'; please clarify whether the largest-amplitude basis state is obtained exactly from the MPS amplitudes or estimated from samples, and reconcile the two descriptions.
  4. [Fig. 7] Figure 7 would benefit from error bars or shaded bands representing statistical uncertainty across noise realizations; without them the comparison between cutting and no cutting is not quantitatively assessable.
  5. [Eqs. (13) and (26)] There are minor typographical issues: Eq. (13) contains '0 .01' spacing, and Eq. (26) has a misplaced square-root delimiter that obscures the denominator.
  6. [General] The paper does not provide a link or availability statement for QuantCut itself, only for the EDAspy dependency; since the Introduction calls QuantCut a framework, please include a code repository or an explicit statement about availability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No substantive circularity: core gate-cutting reconstruction is imported from external work, and the QAOA-versus-EA comparison is measured, not derived from its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The gate-cutting channel identity (Eq. 4, U = sum ai Fi) is taken from Mitarai and Fujii (2021), an external quasiprobability decomposition, and the Appendix A coefficients for CNOT are presented as that method's output; the paper does not define any target result in terms of these coefficients. The QAOA expectation values in Fig. 7 and Table 1 are measured quantities obtained after reconstructing circuits with those fixed, externally specified coefficients, and the 71-qubit Max-Cut 43.41 is a sampled outcome, not a definitional restatement of an input. The self-cited EDAspy package [Soloviev et al., 2024] is used as an optimization subroutine for the cut finder and as the classical EA baseline; this is a minor self-citation but it is not load-bearing, because the comparison is a benchmark on the same graph and the package is a publicly released, independently published heuristic. The 'empirically adjusted' alpha=0.2 threshold and the 71-asset selection are modeling choices that affect external validity, but both QAOA and EA are evaluated on the identical graph, so they do not make the QAOA result equivalent to its inputs. The absence of a noiseless exact-reconstruction check for the 71-qubit case and the internally inconsistent noise-resilience description in Sec. 5.1 (claimed 'consistent improvement' alongside an inferior single-layer cut run) are validation and presentation flaws, not circularity. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation, and no known result is merely renamed.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a few user-chosen parameters, mainly the correlation threshold and the undisclosed MPS bond dimension, and on published results from Mitarai-Fujii and Dees et al. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • correlation threshold alpha = 0.2
    Set empirically in Section 4.1. The graph edges, and therefore the Max-Cut objective, depend on this threshold.
  • subcircuit qubit bound
    Required input to the automatic cut finder (Section 3.1) but never disclosed, so the reported 3 cuts per layer cannot be reproduced.
  • readout error probability = 0.01
    Chosen for the noise model in Eq. 13; affects the noise-resilience comparison.
  • MPS bond dimension
    Used in solution extraction (Section 4.4) but not reported; solution quality can depend on this truncation.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math KAK decomposition (Eq. 3) applies to any two-qubit entangling gate
    Used in Section 2.2 to express the gate to be cut.
  • domain assumption Mitarai-Fujii quasiprobability decomposition (Eq. 4) exactly reconstructs the two-qubit gate channel
    Adopted from the cited literature; QuantCut's post-processing correctness depends on it.
  • ad hoc to paper The readout noise model in Eq. 13 adequately represents device noise for the error-mitigation comparison
    Only readout error is simulated, but the paper suggests cutting as an error-mitigation strategy; no justification is given that gate errors are negligible.
  • domain assumption Portfolio diversification can be solved by Max-Cut on a thresholded correlation graph
    Taken from Dees et al. (2020); not validated on the financial data here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scaling Portfolio Diversification with Quantum Circuit Cutting Techniques." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CZRWLJ6U

@misc{pith2026250608947,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scaling Portfolio Diversification with Quantum Circuit Cutting Techniques},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CZRWLJ6U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08947}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithms (QAOA) have demonstrated a strong potential in addressing graph-based optimization problems. However, the execution of large-scale quantum circuits remains constrained by the limitations of current quantum hardware. In this work, we introduce QuantCut, an automatic framework for circuit cutting that enables efficient execution of large quantum circuits by decomposing entangling two-qubit gates into manageable sub-circuits. Specifically, we focus on gate-cutting techniques. We apply QuantCut to a 71-qubit QAOA circuit ansatz for portfolio diversification in the S&P 500 stock market, aiming to maximize asset diversification. Our approach iteratively optimizes the expectation value while leveraging circuit-cutting strategies to reduce the qubit register size. To validate our framework, we first conduct experiments on a toy model using quantum noise simulations for the Max-Cut problem, analyzing performance improvements with an increasing number of layers. Subsequently, we extend our methodology to a real-world financial optimization scenario, showing competitive results. The results suggest that QuantCut effectively facilitates large-scale quantum computations with circuit-cutting technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08947 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ansatz example with p layers and 2p parameters. The quantum circuit is initialized from a superposition state over all possible computational basis states, then p layers are applied, and all qubits are measured in the Z basis. of the portfolio diversification among a set of assets selected from the S&P 500 stocks 1 with the QAOA approach by optimizing the expectation value of a 71-qubits ansatz. This paper is struct… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. On the left, a gate-cutting (horizontal) cut applied to a GHZ circuit with four qubits. We observe that the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. General flowchart of QuantCut where the three main modules are identified: (i) automatic cut finder (autocutter), (ii) post processing (postprocessing), and (iii) the plotting module (plotting tools). order to perform circuit cutting, there must be at least two subcircuits with at least one qubit per subcircuit. The gates to be cut are those 2-qubit gates in which the control and target qubits are located in separat… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example case in which an original quantum circuit is split into subcircuits of at most 2 qubits size. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Stock market graph where each node represents an asset in the market, labeled by their corresponding ticker [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Tensor-network representation of quantum circuits and states. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: QAOA convergence plot with one, two and three layers, respectively, with (orange line) and without (blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Convergence plot: expectation value minimization of the loss function in Eq. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Correlation heatmap for all 71 assets considered in this work, where positive and negative correlations are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Time series examples plotting along time. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. MOSAIQC: Mixed-topology-aware Optimization for Scalable Approximate noise-Informed Quantum circuit Cutting

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A heuristic circuit-cutting framework combining METIS, tabu search, and quadratic assignment reports faster runtimes and fewer cuts than Qiskit's add-on on tested benchmarks.

  2. Quantum Portfolio Optimization: An Extensive Benchmark

    quant-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    On a new 260-instance real-world benchmark, classical MIP and heuristics clearly outperform quantum annealing and QAOA for a volatility-minimizing portfolio optimization variant.

  3. Signed network models for dimensionality reduction of portfolio optimization

    math.CO 2026-02 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A hedge-score signed-network method selects smaller stock sets that backtests show outperform the full universe, but the claimed higher-moment optimization is not implemented or validated.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [3]

    Kostas Blekos, Dean Brand, Andrea Ceschini, Chiao-Hui Chou, Rui-Hao Li, Komal Pandya, and Alessandro Summer

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/QCE57702.2023.00119. Kostas Blekos, Dean Brand, Andrea Ceschini, Chiao-Hui Chou, Rui-Hao Li, Komal Pandya, and Alessandro Summer. A review on quantum approximate optimization algorithm and its variants. Physics Reports, 1068:1–66,

    arXiv 2023

  2. [5]

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2024.110672

    ISSN 1389-1286. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2024.110672. Marco Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Simon C Benjamin, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, Jarrod R McClean, Kosuke Mitarai, Xiao Yuan, Lukasz Cincio, et al. Variational quantum algorithms. Nature Reviews Physics, 3(9): 625–644,

    arXiv 2024

  3. [12]

    Shigeo Hakkaku, Kosuke Mitarai, and Keisuke Fujii

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3519676. Shigeo Hakkaku, Kosuke Mitarai, and Keisuke Fujii. Sampling-based quasiprobability simulation for fault-tolerant quantum error correction on the surface codes under coherent noise. Physical Review Research, 3(4):043130,

    arXiv 2024

  4. [13]

    A multilevel approach for solving large-scale qubo problems with noisy hybrid quantum approximate optimization

    Filip B Maciejewski, Bao G Bach, Maxime Dupont, P Aaron Lott, Bhuvanesh Sundar, David E Bernal Neira, Ilya Safro, and Davide Venturelli. A multilevel approach for solving large-scale qubo problems with noisy hybrid quantum approximate optimization. In 2024 IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Conference (HPEC) , pages 1–10. IEEE,

    work page 2024

  5. [14]

    Igor L Markov and Yaoyun Shi

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/HPEC62836.2024.10938438. Igor L Markov and Yaoyun Shi. Simulating quantum computation by contracting tensor networks. SIAM Journal on Computing, 38(3):963–981,

    arXiv 2024

  6. [16]

    Anna Nagurney

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/abd7bc. Anna Nagurney. Innovations in financial and economic networks. OR/MS Today, 30(6):60–61,

    doi:10.1088/1367-2630/abd7bc

  7. [19]

    David Perez-Garcia, Frank Verstraete, Michael M Wolf, and J Ignacio Cirac

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.150504. David Perez-Garcia, Frank Verstraete, Michael M Wolf, and J Ignacio Cirac. Matrix product state representations. arXiv preprint quant-ph/0608197,

    arXiv

  8. [20]

    Marco Sciorilli, Lucas Borges, Taylor L Patti, Diego García-Martín, Giancarlo Camilo, Anima Anandkumar, and Leandro Aolita

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5213. Marco Sciorilli, Lucas Borges, Taylor L Patti, Diego García-Martín, Giancarlo Camilo, Anima Anandkumar, and Leandro Aolita. Towards large-scale quantum optimization solvers with few qubits. Nature Communications, 16(1): 476,

    doi:10.1038/ncomms5213

Show all 27 references
  1. [21]

    Seyon Sivarajah, Silas Dilkes, Alexander Cowtan, Will Simmons, Alec Edgington, and Ross Duncan

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-55346-z. Seyon Sivarajah, Silas Dilkes, Alexander Cowtan, Will Simmons, Alec Edgington, and Ross Duncan. t| ket>: a retargetable compiler for nisq devices. Quantum Science and Technology , 6(1):014003,

    doi

  2. [22]

    Vicente P Soloviev, Pedro Larrañaga, and Concha Bielza

    doi: https: //doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/ab8e92. Vicente P Soloviev, Pedro Larrañaga, and Concha Bielza. EDAspy: An extensible python package for estimation of distribution algorithms. Neurocomputing, 598:128043,

    doi

  3. [23]

    Wei Tang and Margaret Martonosi

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2024.128043. Wei Tang and Margaret Martonosi. Cutting quantum circuits to run on quantum and classical platforms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.05836,

    2024

  4. [24]

    Distributed quantum circuit cutting for hybrid quantum-classical high-performance computing

    Mar Tejedor, Berta Casas, Javier Conejero, Alba Cervera-Lierta, and Rosa M Badia. Distributed quantum circuit cutting for hybrid quantum-classical high-performance computing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.01184,

    arXiv

  5. [26]

    Robert R Tucci

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2022.08.003. Robert R Tucci. An introduction to Cartan’s KAK decomposition for QC programmers. arXiv preprint quant- ph/0507171,

    2022

  6. [1960]

    Glen Evenbly

    doi: https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1515/9781400841356.38. Glen Evenbly. A practical guide to the numerical implementation of tensor networks i: Contractions, decompositions, and gauge freedom. Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics , 8:806549,

    doi

  7. [2003]

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.147902. 17

    doi

  8. [2008]

    16 A PREPRINT - AUGUST 21, 2025 Kosuke Mitarai and Keisuke Fujii

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1137/050644756. 16 A PREPRINT - AUGUST 21, 2025 Kosuke Mitarai and Keisuke Fujii. Constructing a virtual two-qubit gate by sampling single-qubit operations. New Journal of Physics, 23(2):023021,

    2025 doi

  9. [2014]

    Hakop Pashayan, Joel J

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2014.06.013. Hakop Pashayan, Joel J. Wallman, and Stephen D. Bartlett. Estimating outcome probabilities of quantum circuits using quasiprobabilities. Phys. Rev. Lett., 115:070501, Aug

    2014 doi

  10. [2015]

    Tianyi Peng, Aram W

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.070501. Tianyi Peng, Aram W. Harrow, Maris Ozols, and Xiaodi Wu. Simulating large quantum circuits on a small quantum computer. Phys. Rev. Lett., 125:150504, Oct

    doi

  11. [2017]

    Jules Tilly, Hongxiang Chen, Shuxiang Cao, Dario Picozzi, Kanav Setia, Ying Li, Edward Grant, Leonard Wossnig, Ivan Rungger, George H Booth, et al

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.180509. Jules Tilly, Hongxiang Chen, Shuxiang Cao, Dario Picozzi, Kanav Setia, Ying Li, Edward Grant, Leonard Wossnig, Ivan Rungger, George H Booth, et al. The variational quantum eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices....

    doi

  12. [2018]

    Paul Erdos, Alfréd Rényi, et al

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.8.031027. Paul Erdos, Alfréd Rényi, et al. On the evolution of random graphs. Publ. math. inst. hung. acad. sci , 5(1):17–60,

    doi

  13. [2019]

    Bruno Scalzo Dees, Ljubiša Stankovi ´c, Anthony G Constantinides, and Danilo P Mandic

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTC46691.2019.8939749. Bruno Scalzo Dees, Ljubiša Stankovi ´c, Anthony G Constantinides, and Danilo P Mandic. Portfolio cuts: A graph- theoretic framework to diversification. In ICASSP 2020-2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech a...

    2019

  14. [2020]

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP40776.2020. 9054371. Suguru Endo, Simon C. Benjamin, and Ying Li. Practical quantum error mitigation for near-future applications. Phys. Rev. X, 8:031027, Jul

    2020

  15. [2021]

    Jaeho Choi and Joongheon Kim

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9. Jaeho Choi and Joongheon Kim. A tutorial on quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA): Fundamentals and applications. In 2019 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology Convergence (ICTC), pages...

    2019 doi

  16. [2022]

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann

    doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/ fams.2022.806549. Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028,

    2022

  17. [2023]

    David Barral, F Javier Cardama, Guillermo Díaz-Camacho, Daniel Faílde, Iago F Llovo, Mariamo Mussa-Juane, Jorge Vázquez-Pérez, Juan Villasuso, César Piñeiro, Natalia Costas, et al

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-040721-022705. David Barral, F Javier Cardama, Guillermo Díaz-Camacho, Daniel Faílde, Iago F Llovo, Mariamo Mussa-Juane, Jorge Vázquez-Pérez, Juan Villasuso, César Piñeiro, Natalia Costas, et al. Review of distributed quantum com...

    doi

  18. [2024]

    Lukas Brenner, Christophe Piveteau, and David Sutter

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TQE.2023.3347106. Lukas Brenner, Christophe Piveteau, and David Sutter. Optimal wire cutting with classical communication. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03366,

    2023

  19. [2025]

    Harun Bayraktar, Ali Charara, David Clark, Saul Cohen, Timothy Costa, Yao-Lung L Fang, Yang Gao, Jack Guan, John Gunnels, Azzam Haidar, et al

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2025.100747. Harun Bayraktar, Ali Charara, David Clark, Saul Cohen, Timothy Costa, Yao-Lung L Fang, Yang Gao, Jack Guan, John Gunnels, Azzam Haidar, et al. cuquantum sdk: A high-performance library for accelerating quantum science. In 2023...

    2025

Pith tools

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