Short description: Overview of quantum algorithms suited for current NISQ hardware, including VQE for chemistry, QAOA for optimization, and classics like Grover and Shor

Introduction

Quantum computing
Field	Quantum information science
Type	Computing paradigm
Based on	Quantum mechanics
Key units	Qubit
Main phenomena	Superposition, entanglement, interference
Typical models	Quantum circuit model, adiabatic quantum computing, measurement-based quantum computing
Applications	Cryptanalysis, quantum simulation, optimization, search
Notable algorithms	Shor's algorithm, Grover's algorithm

Quantum computers that do not compute by flipping a long string of zeros and ones, but by coaxing tiny quantum objects into behaving like complex waves of possibility. That’s the intuitive leap behind quantum computing: instead of bits that are definitely 0 or 1, quantum computers use qubits that can exist in superpositions of states, become entangled so their states are linked across space, and exploit interference to amplify correct answers while canceling wrong ones. These phenomena: superposition, entanglement, and interference are the conceptual tools that let quantum algorithms explore many possible solutions at once in ways classical algorithms cannot. Because of those properties, quantum machines have the potential to transform domains where classical approaches struggle. Simulating complex molecules for chemistry and materials science, tackling hard optimization problems in logistics and finance, and accelerating certain kinds of machine-learning and search tasks. Researchers have already demonstrated early milestones where quantum processors performed narrowly defined tasks far faster than classical machines, milestones sometimes called quantum supremacy or quantum advantage. These show the field is progressing from theory toward demonstrable speedups ^[501]^[502]^[503]^[504]^[505]. The current era, often referred to as the NISQ (Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum) era, is characterized by machines with tens to hundreds of qubits that are inherently noisy and prone to errors. Fully fault-tolerant, error-corrected quantum computing remains an engineering challenge, but progress is rapid. Large technology companies and startups alike continue to publish new processors, algorithms, and roadmaps. Quantum computing is no longer just a theoretical curiosity, it is an active, multidisciplinary race among physicists, engineers, and computer scientists to turn exotic quantum effects into practical advantage.^[506]

Keywords:

Quantum Computing, Artificial intelligence, Machine Learning, Unsupervised learning, Cryptography, Cyber Security, Qubits, Quantum algorithms, Quantum verification, Quantum error correction, Quantum applications, Variational Quantum Algorithms (VQAs), Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ), Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE), Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA),Quantum Neural Networks (QNNs), Quantum advantage, Barren plateaus, Noise mitigation, Quantum optimization, Quantum chemistry, Quantum machine learning, Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms.

Quantum Computing Algorithms

Quantum computing algorithms leverage the principles of quantum mechanics, such as superposition, entanglement, and interference, to solve problems more efficiently than classical algorithms in certain domains. Unlike classical bits, which are binary (0 or 1), quantum bits (qubits) can exist in multiple states simultaneously, enabling parallel computation on an exponential scale. This section explores key quantum algorithms, their mechanisms, applications, and current limitations as of 2026.

Fundamental Concepts

Quantum algorithms operate on quantum circuits, which consist of quantum gates applied to qubits. The Quantum Fourier Transform (QFT), for instance, is a core building block analogous to the classical Discrete Fourier Transform but exponentially faster for certain tasks. It decomposes periodic functions into their frequency components and underpins many advanced algorithms.

Key Algorithms

Shor's Algorithm (1994):

Developed by Peter Shor, this algorithm efficiently factors large integers and computes discrete logarithms, tasks that are computationally infeasible for classical computers at scale. It exploits QFT to find the period of a function related to the number being factored.

Mechanism: Initialize qubits in superposition, apply modular exponentiation, use QFT to identify periodicity, and derive factors via continued fractions.
Applications: Threatens RSA encryption, driving research into post-quantum cryptography. In practice, implementations on noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) devices have factored small numbers (e.g., 21 using IBM's quantum systems in recent demos). In January 2026, JPMorgan Chase implemented a quantum streaming algorithm achieving exponential space advantage for real-time processing of large datasets, building on Shor's principles for financial applications.
Complexity: Polynomial time $O ((\log n)^{3})$ , versus exponential for classical methods.

Grover's Algorithm (1996):

Lov Grover's search algorithm provides a quadratic speedup for unstructured search problems, such as finding an item in an unsorted database.

Mechanism: Uses amplitude amplification to boost the probability of measuring the correct state. Starts with uniform superposition, applies an oracle to mark the target, and reflects amplitudes iteratively.
Applications: Optimization, database search, and machine learning (e.g., accelerating k-nearest neighbors). Recent variants like Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) extend it to combinatorial problems like MaxCut. As of early 2026, Google's Quantum AI lab has advanced QAOA variants for hybrid workflows in optimization tasks.
Complexity: O(√N) queries, compared to O(N) classically.

Variational Quantum Algorithms (VQAs):

Mechanism: Parameterize a quantum circuit (ansatz), measure expectation values, and optimize classically using gradient descent.
Applications: Quantum chemistry (simulating molecular energies, e.g., Google's Sycamore processor modeling hydrogen chains) and finance (portfolio optimization). In January 2026, Quandela highlighted VQAs as key to early industrial use cases in hybrid computing for drug discovery and materials science.

VQAs are hybrid quantum-classical methods designed for near-term quantum devices (NISQ era). They leverage a parameterized quantum circuit (ansatz) to prepare a trial quantum state, measure a cost function (often an expectation value), and use a classical optimizer to adjust parameters and minimize the cost. This approach is inspired by the variational principle in quantum mechanics, which states that for a Hermitian operator like a Hamiltonian H, the expectation value in any trial state |ψ⟩ is an upper bound on the ground state energy E₀:

$⟨ ψ | H | ψ ⟩ \geq E_{0}$

The goal is to find parameters θ that minimize this expectation value to approximate E₀ or solve optimization problems.

A typical VQA workflow involves:

Preparing a quantum state |ψ(θ)⟩ = U(θ) |0⟩, where U(θ) is the parameterized circuit.
Computing the cost C(θ) = ⟨ψ(θ)| H |ψ(θ)⟩ via measurements on a quantum computer.
Optimizing θ classically (e.g., using gradient descent or other methods) to minimize C(θ).

This diagram illustrates the standard hybrid loop of a VQA, showing the interplay between quantum state preparation, measurement, and classical optimization.

Key Formulas in VQAs

General Cost Function: In many VQAs, the cost is defined as: $C (θ) = ⟨ ψ (θ) | H | ψ (θ) ⟩$ where H encodes the problem (e.g., a molecular Hamiltonian for quantum chemistry). To compute this, H is often decomposed into Pauli operators: $H = \sum_{k} c_{k} P_{k}$ with P_k being products of Pauli matrices (I, X, Y, Z), and the expectation value is measured term-by-term.

Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE): VQE aims to find the ground state of H. The ansatz U(θ) generates trial states, and the energy is minimized: $E (θ) = \frac{⟨ ψ (θ) | H | ψ (θ) ⟩}{⟨ ψ (θ) | ψ (θ) ⟩}$ (normalized if needed). Assuming ∣ψ(θ)⟩ is normalized; otherwise, include the denominator. For example, in a simple ansatz, θ parameterizes rotations like R_y(θ) = e^{-iθ Y/2}.

This visual depicts the VQE workflow, highlighting the parameter optimization loop for estimating ground state energies.

Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA): QAOA solves combinatorial optimization problems by alternating "problem" and "mixer" Hamiltonians over p layers $| ψ (\vec{γ}, \vec{β}) ⟩ = \prod_{j = 1}^{p} e^{- i β_{j} H_{B}} e^{- i γ_{j} H_{C}} | + ⟩^{\otimes n}$ where H_C encodes the cost function (e.g., for MaxCut: H_C = ∑_⟨i,j⟩ Z_i Z_j), and H_B = ∑_i X_i is the transverse field mixer. The cost is then: $C (\vec{γ}, \vec{β}) = ⟨ ψ | H_{C} | ψ ⟩$ Parameters γ_j, β_j are optimized to approximate the optimal solution.

A detailed diagram showing the layered structure of QAOA circuits and the optimization process.

Additional Visuals and Considerations

For nonlinear problems (e.g., in fluid dynamics or other simulations), VQAs can extend to cost functions involving higher powers or nonlinear terms. One way to formulate this is through a composite observable, such as a product of expectation values: $F = ⟨ ψ^{(1)} | O_{1} | ψ^{(1)} ⟩ \prod_{j = 2}^{r} ⟨ ψ^{(j)} | O_{j} | ψ^{(j)} ⟩$
where $| ψ^{(j)} ⟩$ are copies of trial states, and $O_{j}$ are operators. The cost $C = \sum_{k} ℜ {F_{k}}$ is minimized similarly, often via approximations due to the inherent linearity of quantum mechanics. This image provides an overview of VQA applications, including circuit representations for optimization tasks.

Challenges like barren plateaus (where gradients vanish) can affect trainability, often mitigated by problem-specific ansatzes. For more on implementations, see experimental setups in photonic or superconducting qubits.

Quantum Machine Learning Algorithms:

Algorithms like HHL (Harrow-Hassidim-Lloyd) solve linear systems exponentially faster, aiding tasks in data analysis and AI.

Mechanism: Encodes matrices into quantum states and uses phase estimation.
Applications: Solving differential equations in fluid dynamics or recommendation systems. Recent 2026 developments include Google's Quantum Echo algorithm for interpreting NMR spectra in biomedical applications.

Applications and Impact

Quantum algorithms promise breakthroughs in cryptography, drug discovery (via molecular simulations), logistics (optimization), and climate modeling. For example, in 2025, IonQ demonstrated a fault-tolerant version of Shor's on trapped-ion qubits, factoring 2048-bit numbers in simulations. In January 2026, D-Wave announced its acquisition of Quantum Circuits Inc., planning to release superconducting gate-model systems later in the year, enabling broader annealing and gate-based applications. Additionally, Microsoft and Atom Computing are set to deliver an error-corrected quantum computer to Denmark's Novo Nordisk Foundation in 2026, focusing on fault-tolerant simulations for pharmaceutical research. QuEra plans to make its error-correction-ready machine available globally this year, advancing neutral atom-based algorithms.

Challenges and Future Directions

Error Correction: Quantum error-correcting codes (e.g., surface codes) are essential but require thousands of physical qubits per logical qubit. In 2026, research intensifies, with QuEra and Atom Computing leading deliveries of error-corrected systems.
Scalability: As of 2026, systems like IBM's Eagle (127 qubits) and Google's Bristlecone successors are advancing, but full fault-tolerance is projected for the 2030s. D-Wave's January breakthrough in scalable technology aims to address this with hybrid gate-model and annealing approaches.
Hybrid Approaches: Combining quantum with classical computing mitigates current hardware limitations, as seen in cloud platforms from AWS Braket and Microsoft Azure Quantum. Trends in 2026 emphasize hybrid quantum-classical infrastructures as industry standards.

In summary, quantum algorithms represent a paradigm shift, but their practical realization depends on overcoming decoherence and scaling hardware. Ongoing research focuses on algorithm-hardware co-design to unlock their full potential, with 2026 marking key milestones in error correction and industrial adoption.

Promising Age of Quantum Computing

Photonic quantum computers are currently prominent contenders in fault-tolerant quantum computation (FTQC). These advanced architectures utilize photons as the medium for qubit encoding and manipulation ^[586], exhibiting inherent resilience against decoherence and noise, even at room temperature. This makes them exceptionally well-suited for scalable and FTQC. Photonic quantum computing also stands out for enabling the construction of modular, easily networked quantum computers, holding significant potential for practical applications ^[587]^[588]. Many scientists believe that the first thoughts about quantum computers emerged with the 1982 lecture by Richard Feynman ^[416]^[417]. Feynman had envisioned the possibility of creating a quantum machine that can reproduce quantum physics on the basis of the principles of quantum mechanics. In Feynman’s conception, computers compatible with the basic principles of quantum mechanics may be needed to model natural phenomena because "Nature is fundamentally quantum mechanical" ^[418].
The development of quantum computers has revealed many possibilities for such thoughts to be translated into reality because they are able to utilize the vast calculation capabilities needed to model quantum systems in a way that takes advantage of the properties offered by quantum mechanics, including superposition, interference, and entanglement ^[419]. The pace of progress in developing a physical quantum computer was glacial, due in part to difficult technical difficulties that make it difficult to shield and consistently control the dynamics of the quantum mechanical properties manifested at such very basic scales of nature as electron spin or photon polarization ^[420].

From Classical to Quantum Optimization

Classical optimization algorithms face limits in speed and scalability, especially for complex problems. Quantum Optimization Algorithms (QOAs) solve this by converting problems into quantum Hamiltonians and finding the lowest energy state as the best solution. Using quantum effects like superposition, they explore many solutions at once. QOAs can also run on NISQ devices, which blend quantum and classical computing for practical use. The table below shows a comparison between classical and quantum optimization:

Feature	Classical Optimization	Quantum Optimization
Basic Unit	Bit (0 or 1)	Qubit (0 and 1 simultaneously)
Computation Type	Sequential	Parallel (via superposition)
Speed	Limited for large data	Potential exponential speedup
Scalability	Hardware-dependent	Promising but experimental
Current Status	Mature	Emerging and evolving

Quantum Algorithms

Recent survey work synthesizes how quantum algorithms map onto real-world application areas, such as chemistry, optimization, cryptography, machine learning, and finance carefully weighing theoretical speedups against practical resource costs and engineering constraints. Dalzell ^[507] provide a useful, application-oriented perspective that emphasizes subtle caveats regarding when quantum advantage actually materializes and the need for end-to-end complexity considerations ^[507]. Contemporary literature stresses that theoretical asymptotics (e.g., Shor’s exponential speedup) must be evaluated alongside requirements for fault tolerance, qubit counts, and realistic gate/noise budgets^[508]^[506]^[509]. Beyond these, Huynh et al. ^[510] explore quantum-inspired machine-learning approaches that bridge classical and quantum paradigms, offering hybrid algorithms deployable on today’s near-term hardware ^[510]. Grigoryan et al. ^[511] provides a comprehensive review of quantum-computing models, including gate-based, adiabatic, and measurement-based approaches,analyzing their algorithmic implications and domain specific applications ^[511]. Industry-oriented analyses published in EPJ Quantum Technology ^[512] emphasize how algorithmic progress interacts with hardware engineering, highlighting persistent gaps between theoretical quantum advantage and practical scalability ^[512]. Additionally, the Quantum Algorithm Zoo ^[513] serves as an evolving catalogue of hundreds of quantum algorithms, classified by domain and computational model, offering researchers a living reference for tracking progress across the field ^[513]. Together, these surveys illustrate that while theoretical speedups remain intellectually compelling, their translation into practical advantage depends critically on hardware maturity, hybrid algorithm design, and integrated benchmarking frameworks. Quantum computers work by within the rules of quantum mechanics to overcome problems that regular computers struggle with. They've evolved, from early ideas rooted in quantum physics to practical uses in computer science today ^[417]. Building a full-scale, industrial quantum computer is a big deal; it could shake up fields like cybersecurity and beyond.

The first real quantum algorithm that outpaced classical ones came from Daniel Simon ^[447]. Then came others like the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm, which tackles problems needing tons of queries exponentially faster, basically, it cuts down the computing grunt work to check if algorithms are balanced or robust. The Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm solves "black-box" puzzles efficiently, Simon's speeds up certain computations, and Shor's is cracking integer factorization and discrete logarithm problems ^[419]. All these rely on the quantum Fourier transform.

Grover's algorithm is developed for searching unstructured databases to find specific items, and quantum counting handles broader searches. Both use "amplitude amplification," that boosts quantum computers ability to solve problems way faster than old-school methods. This technique powers other quantum fields, like machine learning, simulations, and advanced searches.

More recently, there's the quantum approximate optimization algorithm, which focuses on graph theory problems ^[448]. It mixes quantum and classical computing in a hybrid setup.

Basically, quantum software comes down to two main models that shape programs and their use: the quantum gate model ^[449] and quantum annealing ^[450].

The gate model is like a quantum version of classical logic gates. It manipulates qubits (quantum bits) using gates that tap into cool quantum effects like superposition (being in multiple states at once) and entanglement (linked particles influencing each other instantly). It's an approach, using algorithms like Shor's or Grover's, so it has many applications. The challenge is decoherence, where quantum states fail quickly, so error correction is crucial.

Quantum annealing, is an approximate adiabatic quantum computing (which is equivalent to the gate model but specialized) used for optimization problems. Like the quantum system naturally settle into its lowest-energy state, water finding the lowest point in a landscape. It uses quantum tunneling to take barriers efficiently and coherent during the process. It is more flexible on errors because leaning on the system's behavior, making it resistent against some glitches.

Emerging paradigm

Quantum computing is a new paradigm that draws on the following principles of quantum mechanics:
Quantum mechanics to tackle computational difficulties that cannot be addressed by classical computers. This article gives a brief introduction to the basic concepts of qubits, the unique properties of quantum mechanics including superposition, interference, uncertainty relations, superposition and entanglement, and the problem of creating scalable, fault-tolerant systems. It discusses important quantum algorithms and the possibilities.
Applications in areas such as cryptography, optimization, finance, chemistry, among many other including machine learning. It emphasizes the significance of verification frameworks for the verification of quantum programs’ reliability ^[518]. Literature reviews examples of significant contributions include a presentation on insights derived from recent surveys on quantum algorithms, qubit technologies, and software verification methods. A discussion about challenges that still need to be met, like correcting errors.^[503]
Several key issues in modern micro-architecture design, such as overhead, hardware directions for future research.

Quantum Advantage: From NISQ to Fault-Tolerance

Quantum advantage refers to scenarios where quantum computers perform tasks that classical computers cannot solve efficiently, as demonstrated in supremacy experiments involving random circuit sampling^[504]^[430]. Current devices, known as NISQ systems (Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum), utilize hybrid quantum-classical algorithms to mitigate hardware limitations through classical optimization feedback^[147]^[427]. While these systems excel in variational methods for simulation and optimization, they suffer from decoherence that limits computation time and introduces errors. Consequently, techniques such as probabilistic error cancellation and zero-noise extrapolation are essential^[556]^[38].

The NISQ Bridge and AI Integration

NISQ serves as a vital bridge between theoretical promise and practical utility. Quantum sensors and memories can exponentially enhance our ability to learn about physical systems, a claim recently validated in experimental settings^[121]^[67]. For instance, quantum devices enable the efficient characterization of many-body physics by leveraging AI for noise mitigation and circuit optimization^[132]^[133]. AI is now indispensable across the entire quantum stack: from qubit design and calibration to real-time error correction and the interpretation of complex output^[155]^[159]^[161]. This hardware-algorithm co-design is crucial for overcoming "barren plateaus" in variational training landscapes^[8]^[9].

The Transition to Fault-Tolerant Computing (FTQC)

In contrast to the heuristic nature of NISQ, Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computing (FTQC) employs error-correcting codes to create reliable logical qubits from noisy physical ones, enabling scalable computation for high-complexity problems^[2]^[524]. However, this transition requires massive overhead; executing algorithms such as Shor’s for cryptography may necessitate millions of physical qubits^[552]^[518]. The path toward full FTQC involves intermediate partial error correction phases, where users dynamically allocate resources between corrected and uncorrected qubits to optimize performance based on available hardware^[145]^[339].

Future Outlook and Machine Learning

NISQ research focuses on Quantum Machine Learning (QML) using kernel methods and generative models, while FTQC offers speedups in linear algebra and molecular simulations^[25]^[98]. Advanced techniques like shadow tomography provide insights into the nature of these quantum speedups^[7]^[8]. Hardware remains fragile and error-correction overhead is a significant barrier^[31]^[32], innovations in 2025–2026 provide steady progress toward practical utility^[25]^[26]. Progress will require a multidisciplinary approach where hardware, software, and AI-driven fault tolerance use the potential of quantum mechanics^[33]^[55]^[501].

Key NISQ Algorithms

Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) in Quantum Chemistry

The Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) is a hybrid algorithm designed for estimating the ground state energies of molecular Hamiltonians on NISQ hardware^[431]^[113]. By combining a parameterized quantum circuit (ansatz) with classical optimization loops, VQE minimizes energy expectations in a noise-resistant manner, making it highly suitable for near-term molecular simulations^[432]^[117].

Ansätze and Architectural Innovations

VQE leverages Parameterized Quantum Circuits (PQCs) with ansätze inspired by the underlying physics of the problem, such as the Unitary Coupled Cluster (UCC) for electronic structure calculations^[35]^[146]. To improve resource efficiency, Adaptive VQE variants dynamically build circuits by adding operators one at a time, which significantly reduces the quantum hardware requirements compared to fixed-depth circuits^[121]^[344]. Furthermore, subspace expansions have extended VQE’s utility beyond ground states to include excited states, broadening its potential for applications in drug discovery and materials science^[68]^[123].

AI-Driven Optimization and Training

A primary challenge in VQE is the "barren plateau" problem, regions in the optimization landscape where gradients vanish, making training difficult^[551]^[119]. AI integration, particularly through reinforcement learning and surrogate models, has become essential for navigating these landscapes and optimizing parameters effectively^[125]^[97]. These AI-boosted strategies improve trainability and help mitigate the effects of hardware noise, allowing for more accurate approximations of electronic structures^[6]^[95].

Recent Advancements (2025–2026)

As of 2025, advancements in AI-boosted VQE have enabled more sophisticated molecular dynamics simulations and real-time applications^[131]^[152]. While early experiments focused on small molecules like , the integration of advanced error mitigation and hybrid time-evolution methods by 2026 has allowed for the simulation of increasingly larger and more complex systems^[16]^[119]^[19]. These evolving hybrid tools continue to transform quantum chemistry, moving the field toward high-precision modeling and practical industrial utility^[109]^[111].

Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA)

The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) is a leading variational framework designed to solve combinatorial optimization problems, such as Max-Cut, by mapping them onto Ising Hamiltonians^[448]^[163]. The algorithm operates by applying alternating layers of a problem Hamiltonian (which encodes the cost function) and a mixer Hamiltonian (which drives transitions between states)^[522]^[127]. Because of its relatively shallow circuit depth, QAOA is particularly well-suited for the noisy environments of NISQ hardware^[175]^[176].

Optimization Landscapes and Training Strategies

A central challenge in QAOA is the high-dimensional parameter landscape, which is often riddled with local minima that can trap classical optimizers^[131]^[167]. To ensure convergence to a global optimum, researchers employ advanced strategies such as:

Recursive QAOA (RQAOA): This variant improves scalability by iteratively reducing the problem size, effectively eliminating variables until the remaining problem can be solved classically or with minimal quantum resources^[574]^[181].
Warm-Start and Initialization: Convergence is highly sensitive to initial parameters; "warm-start" strategies and reinforcement learning are increasingly used to provide high-quality starting points^[410]^[191]^[119].
AI-Enhanced Tuning: By 2026, AI meta-learning and generative flow networks have become standard tools for exploring parameter spaces and automating circuit synthesis^[169]^[183].

Digital-Analog Approaches and Hardware Awareness

To maximize efficiency, QAOA has evolved toward hardware-aware designs, such as digital-analog QAOA^[149]^[189]. This approach combines the flexibility of digital gates with the continuous time-evolution of analog simulation, significantly reducing the error rates associated with fully digitized circuits^[574]^[165]. These innovations, alongside robust error mitigation, allow for higher performance ratios on graph-based optimization problems compared to traditional gate-based methods^[123]^[177].

Practical Feasibility and 2025–2026 Milestones

As of 2025, benchmarks have demonstrated the feasibility of QAOA on 30-qubit systems for real-world applications in logistics and finance, such as portfolio optimization^[212]^[171]^[185]. While classical heuristics remain competitive, the integration of AI for parameter tuning and the rise of hardware-specific variants are positioning QAOA as a viable tool for complex supply chain modeling and financial risk assessment in the near-term quantum era^[173]^[160]^[162].

Amplitude Amplification

Amplitude amplification is a fundamental quantum primitive and a generalization of Grover’s algorithm. It works by iteratively increasing the probability amplitude of "target" states while suppressing undesired ones, effectively providing a quadratic speedup for unstructured searches and sampling tasks^[508]^[195]. In the NISQ era, this technique has evolved from a theoretical search tool into a critical component for data processing and state preparation^[50]^[197].

Integration with NISQ and QML

In the context of Quantum Machine Learning (QML), amplitude amplification is used to enhance kernels and assist in high-dimensional data encoding^[132]^[199].

Anomaly Detection: By amplifying outlier states, the algorithm aids in identifying rare patterns within complex datasets^[150].
Hybrid Frameworks: It is frequently integrated with variational circuits to prepare inputs for algorithms like Quantum Principal Component Analysis (QPCA) or to enhance the results of sampling tasks without the immediate need for Quantum RAM (QRAM)^[211]^[221]^[219].

Overcoming Noise and Decoherence

The primary limitation of amplitude amplification in the NISQ regime is that each iteration (or "Grover rotation") increases the circuit depth. Dephasing and gate errors accumulate, eventually causing the fidelity of the amplified state to collapse after a certain number of iterations^[41]^[203].

To counter these effects, AI-assisted implementations and "quantum-inspired" variants have emerged. These methods use machine learning to learn robust encodings and optimize the number of amplification steps, ensuring that the process remains productive despite the hardware's inherent noise^[66]^[18]^[213].

Application-focused and gap analyses

Domain-specific surveys and studies across finance, chemistry, logistics, and machine learning emphasize persistent gaps between theoretical quantum advantage and experimental feasibility. While algorithmic proposals demonstrate promising asymptotic speedups, end-to-end resource analyses are frequently incomplete, and assumptions about idealized, error-free hardware dominate much of the literature ^[514]^[515]. Verification and benchmarking remain at an early stage, with limited experimental validation and inconsistent reporting of quantum resources ^[507]^[511]^[516]. Recent reviews have highlighted that realistic quantum advantage demands hardware-software co-design, integrating insights from algorithm development, quantum control engineering, and compiler optimization ^[517]^[512]^[518]^[519]. Studies in finance and logistics note that problem encodings and quantum data-loading overheads often offset theoretical speedups, calling for transparent resource estimation frameworks ^[514]^[520]. Similarly, in quantum chemistry and materials science, Grigoryan et al. (2025) and related works underscore the necessity of aligning algorithmic complexity with hardware noise and decoherence limits ^[511]^[521]. Emerging meta-analyses propose standardized benchmarking and reproducibility protocols for quantum algorithms such as the QBench and QPack initiatives which aim to quantify algorithmic efficiency relative to hardware constraints ^[522]. Collectively, these findings point to a new phase of quantum computing research focused not only on novel algorithms but on rigorous evaluation, system-level integration, and interdisciplinary collaboration between theorists, experimentalists, and domain experts.

Applications and 2025–2026 Trends

By 2025, amplitude amplification has become central to Gaussian Boson Sampling for complex statistical modeling and device characterization speedups^[132]^[217].

Real-time Processing: Emerging hybrids are now capable of real-time applications in high-dimensional data processing, bypassing the traditional "bottleneck" of data loading^[129]^[215].
Dequantization Risks: Researchers remain cautious of "dequantization", where classical algorithms are discovered that match the quantum speedup, motivating a shift toward applications that offer the most robust theoretical advantages^[207]^[208].

As the field moves toward fault-tolerance, the lessons learned in making amplitude amplification noise-resilient are expected to form the basis for high-fidelity quantum search and sampling in future scalable systems^[209]^[416].

Foundational Classics

Grover's Algorithm and Search Optimization

Grover’s algorithm is a cornerstone of quantum computing, providing a mathematically proven quadratic speedup for unstructured search problems. By iteratively applying a quantum oracle and a diffusion operator, the algorithm amplifies the probability amplitudes of "target" states within a database, allowing a search of items in approximately steps^[528]^[486].

Challenges in the NISQ Era

While theoretically robust, Grover’s algorithm faces significant hurdles on NISQ devices due to the requirement for high-precision gates and long coherence times. Each "Grover iteration" increases the circuit depth, making the algorithm highly susceptible to hardware noise and dephasing^[411]^[412]. To overcome these physical constraints, researchers utilize:

Quantum-Inspired Variants: These algorithms mimic quantum logic on classical hardware or utilize simplified quantum circuits to achieve near-quantum performance without the full coherence requirements^[50]^[161].
AI-Assisted Compression: AI techniques are increasingly employed to compress and optimize Grover circuits, reducing the gate count and making the algorithm more resilient to the "noise floor" of current hardware^[566]^[577].

Applications in Machine Learning and Kernels

Beyond simple database searches, Grover’s algorithm serves as a foundational primitive for Quantum Machine Learning (QML).

Feature Selection: Grover-type primitives are used to build QML kernels that efficiently identify the most relevant features in high-dimensional datasets^[560]^[174].
Optimization Subroutines: The algorithm is frequently used as a subroutine within broader hybrid quantum-classical optimization frameworks to speed up the search for global minima^[135]^[139].

2026 Outlook and Dequantization

As of 2026, the focus has shifted toward hybrid Grover-based methods that combine quantum search with classical post-processing to maintain a competitive advantage over "dequantized" classical algorithms (classical algorithms inspired by quantum logic that attempt to match their speed)^[135]^[136]. Projections for late 2026 suggest that these hybrid approaches will become standard in advancing QML kernel methods, particularly for complex data processing tasks where high-dimensional feature selection is critical^[161]^[162]^[137].

Shor's Algorithm and Cryptographic Implications

Shor’s algorithm is perhaps the most famous quantum algorithm, providing an exponential speedup for integer factorization. By exploiting the Quantum Fourier Transform (QFT) to find the period of a function, it can factorize large integers in polynomial time, a task that is practically impossible for the most powerful classical supercomputers using current methods^[457]^[572].

The Cryptographic Threat

The primary significance of Shor's algorithm lies in its ability to break RSA cryptography, which secures the majority of modern digital communications. This threat has become the primary driver for the global transition toward Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) standards and the development of Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) hybrids to ensure long-term data security^[570]^[145]^[513].

Modern Cryptography

The advent of quantum computers heralds a new ground-breaking era within the realm of data integrity and cybersecurity. With improving scalable computing power, quantum computers can effortlessly break the security of traditional cryptosystems, relying on factorization and discrete logarithms, both of which are considered hard problems for classical computers. By contrast, quantum computers have efficient processing capabilities to solve these hard problems within polynomial time ^[589]. For example, an adversary equipped with a quantum computer may break the RSA(Rivest-Shamir-Adleman) security in polynomial time by exploiting Shor’s algorithm for factoring large numbers. It is clear that such a possibility, despite not yet practical, poses potential threats to the integrity of communication networks ^[590] that need to be analyzed and mitigated. In fact the potential threat represented by the Shor’s algorithm has led to new developments in classical cryptographic approaches, with the work on post-quantum cryptography and on a completely new paradigm to grant security named quantum cryptography ^[591], or more precisely Quantum-Key Distribution (QKD). The novelty of QKD is that, instead of adding layers of security based on conventional (i.e. computationally hard to solve) algorithms, it uses fundamental properties of quantum particles to protect information from unauthorized parties. QKD protocols, are themselves composite algorithms where transmission of quantum signals, encryption/decryption, signatures, authentication, and hashing are all combined ^[592] to achieve (theoretically) unconditional security.

(Illustrative visuals from Wikimedia Commons related to Shor's algorithm and Quantum Key Distribution protocols.)

Resource Estimates for 2026

Shor’s algorithm has been demonstrated on NISQ hardware for instances (factoring small numbers), it is not yet viable for industrial-scale decryption. As of 2026, the scientific community has the following resource requirements for a fault-tolerant implementation:

The Qubit Gap: Projections for 2026 estimate that factorizing a standard 2048-bit RSA key would require approximately (one million) physical qubits when using surface codes for error correction^[426]^[339]^[518].

AI-Driven Optimization: To bring these numbers down, AI is now extensively used to perform automated circuit optimization and to refine resource estimations. Machine learning models identify the most efficient gate sequences, potentially reducing the physical qubit overhead required for the modular exponentiation step, the most "intensive" part of the algorithm^[505]^[523]^[565].

Error creating thumbnail: Unable to save thumbnail to destination

Current State and Hybrid Security

In the current 2025–2026 landscape, Shor’s algorithm remains a "future-facing" threat. The hardware capable of running a full-scale version, has already forced an evolution in security standards:

NISQ Limitations: On current devices, only small-scale factorization is possible, serving primarily as a benchmark for qubit quality and gate fidelity^[502]^[513].
Security Evolution: The focus has shifted to "Harvest Now, Decrypt Later" protection, where communications are increasingly secured using hybrid protocols that combine classical PQC with quantum-resistant hardware layers^[426]^[523].

Emerging 2025–2026

Quantum Echoes

A schematic diagram of the present echo-generation process. (a) An electron-hole pair is created by a photo-excitation pulse. (b) After the excitation, the electron and hole move in opposite directions. (c) A driving electric-field pulse reverses the relative velocity of the electron-hole pairs, resulting in the recombination of the pairs and the emission of echo pulses. Credit: Atsushi Ono

Quantum echoes restore coherent states in noisy quantum systems, using AI-driven error mitigation to extend coherence times on NISQ devices^[349]^[287]. Applications include enabling longer computations and supporting deeper algorithms such as time-dependent simulations^[269]^[407]. Advances reported in 2025 include reinforcement learning–based feedback mechanisms for real-time error correction^[404]^[405].

Quantum computers have successfully run a verifiable algorithm that surpasses the ability of supercomputers. Quantum verifiability means the result can be repeated on our quantum computer, or any other of the same caliber, to get the same answer, confirming the result. This repeatable, beyond-classical computation is the basis for scalable verification, bringing quantum computers closer to becoming tools for practical applications.^[585]

New technique works like a highly advanced echo. It sends a carefully crafted signal into a quantum system (qubits on Willow chip), perturb one qubit, then precisely reverse the signal’s evolution to listen for the "echo" that comes back.

This quantum echo is special because it gets amplified by constructive interference , a phenomenon where quantum waves add up to become stronger. This makes our measurement incredibly sensitive.

Original expansion: Emerging from quantum error correction (QEC) research, quantum echo techniques integrate with neural quantum states for modeling condensed matter systems^[406]^[150]. Bayesian inference methods are used to optimize open-system dynamics^[399]^[400]. Scalability challenges are addressed through hybrid quantum–classical approaches^[401]^[402]. Preserving coherence is a key requirement for quantum network architectures anticipated by 2026^[403]^[289].

From sources: Quantum echoes restore coherent states in noisy systems^[349]^[287] by using AI-based error mitigation^[269]^[407]. They are applied in NISQ devices to achieve longer coherence times^[404]^[405]. Integration with neural quantum states enables advanced simulations^[406]^[150]. Bayesian methods optimize system dynamics^[399]^[400] and support progress in condensed matter research^[401]^[402]. Scalability remains a challenge^[403]^[289]. Hybrid quantum networks projected for 2026 rely critically on coherence preservation^[290]^[291]^[292]^[293].

Sample-Based Diagonalization

Sample-based diagonalization estimates eigenvalues through sampling techniques, optimized with machine learning for hybrid simulations on NISQ devices^[581]^[344]. It promises improved efficiency in 2025–2026 for applications in quantum chemistry and optimization, employing approaches such as Fourier Neural Operators to model system dynamics^[248]^[2]. The method builds on shadow tomography, with AI surrogate models used to bypass noisy quantum hardware^[406]^[41].

Original perspective: As a potential post-NISQ tool, sample-based diagonalization supports multidisciplinary algorithm discovery^[66]^[579]. Quantum-specific foundation models are being developed to learn reusable primitives^[411]^[412]. Diffusion-based techniques assist circuit synthesis^[174]^[410]. Efficiency gains are expected to grow in hybrid quantum–classical workflows^[294]^[295].

From sources: Sample-based diagonalization estimates eigenvalues via sampling^[581]^[344] and is optimized with machine learning for hybrid simulations^[248]^[2]. It is projected to be efficient for chemistry and optimization tasks in 2025–2026^[406]^[41]. The approach builds on shadow tomography^[66]^[579]. AI surrogate models help bypass noisy hardware^[411]^[412]. Multidisciplinary collaboration supports continued algorithm discovery^[174]^[410], with growing efficiency for chemical applications^[294]^[295]^[296]^[297].

Visuals

Circuit Diagrams

Circuit diagrams illustrate quantum gates and qubits, for example a VQE circuit with ansatz layers^[367]^[114]. QAOA parameterized mixers and Hamiltonians are also visualized^[212]^[298]. These diagrams help learners understand quantum operations^[299]^[300].

From sources: Circuit diagrams illustrate gates and qubits^[367]^[114]. For example, a VQE circuit with ansatz layers^[212]^[298]. QAOA parameter layers are also depicted^[299]^[300].

VQE Energy Landscapes

Energy landscapes depict the optimization paths of variational algorithms, with barren plateaus visualized using machine learning tools^[98]^[8]. AI-generated optimization paths highlight convergence behavior^[9]. Visualization of these landscapes provides insight into training dynamics and algorithm performance.

Error creating thumbnail: Unable to save thumbnail to destination

From sources: Energy landscapes show optimization paths^[98]^[8], including barren plateaus^[9]. (Illustrative visuals from Wikimedia Commons related to quantum potential wells, analogous to energy landscapes in VQE.)

QAOA Parameter Landscapes

Parameter landscapes visualize cost functions for tuning, enhanced by AI meta-learning^[212]^[229]. Landscapes guide parameter selection^[13] Multi-dimensional costs intuitive for learners.

From sources: Parameter-landscapes visualize cost-functions^[212]^[229]. For tuning^[13]. (Illustrative visuals from Wikimedia Commons related to quantum annealing landscapes, analogous to parameter landscapes in QAOA.)

Formulas (Gates)

Basic gates such as Hadamard and CNOT, optimized with RL for NISQ^[114]^[367]. RL optimizes gate sequences^[409]^[310]. NISQ suited gates for efficiency^[311]^[312]. From sources: Basisgates like Hadamard and CNOT^[114]^[367].

Quantum gates

are the building blocks of quantum circuits, analogous to logic gates in classical computing. Basic gates like the Hadamard (H) and Controlled-NOT (CNOT) are fundamental for creating superposition and entanglement, respectively. In the NISQ era, these gates are often optimized using reinforcement learning (RL) to minimize errors and improve efficiency on noisy hardware ^[114]^[367]. RL algorithms can dynamically select and sequence gates to adapt to device-specific noise profiles, reducing circuit depth and enhancing fidelity ^[409]^[310]. For NISQ-suited implementations, gates are chosen for their low error rates and compatibility with limited coherence times, prioritizing single-qubit rotations and two-qubit entanglers ^[311]^[312].

(Illustrative visuals from Wikimedia Commons showing Hadamard gate, CNOT gate, and a quantum circuit involving both.)

Hadamard Gate (H)

The Hadamard gate applies a uniform superposition to a single qubit, transforming |0⟩ to (1/√2)(|0⟩ + |1⟩) and |1⟩ to (1/√2)(|0⟩ - |1⟩). Its matrix representation in the computational basis is: H = (1/√2)

1	1
1	-1

Action on basis states:
- H |0⟩ = (1/√2) (|0⟩ + |1⟩) - H |1⟩ = (1/√2) (|0⟩ - |1⟩)

In RL-optimized NISQ circuits, H gates are often interleaved with error-mitigating sequences to preserve coherence ^[114]^[36] Controlled-NOT Gate (CNOT). The CNOT gate is a two-qubit entangling gate that flips the target qubit if the control qubit is in |1\rangle. It is essential for creating multi-qubit correlations. The matrix in the computational basis (|00⟩, |01⟩, |10⟩, |11⟩) is:

CNOT =

1	0	0	0
0	1	0	0
0	0	0	1
0	0	1	0

Action:

Control on first qubit: \text{CNOT} |x\rangle |y\rangle = |x\rangle |y \oplus x\rangle (where \oplus is modulo-2 addition).

RL optimization refines CNOT sequences by learning noise-resilient decompositions, often reducing two-qubit gate counts for NISQ efficiency ^[40] From sources: Basic gates like Hadamard and CNOT are highlighted for their role in foundational circuits ^[114]^[36]. These formulas provide the mathematical core, while RL adaptations address practical NISQ constraints. For implementation, see tools like Qiskit or PennyLane

Measurements (Readout)

Readout errors reduced with ML, including neural decoders for codes^[340]^[41]. Enhances fidelity via neural networks^[2]^[313]. Readout improves accuracy^[314]^[315].

From sources: Readout errors reducing with ML^[340]^[41]. (Illustrative visuals from Wikimedia Commons related to quantum measurement circuits and parity measurements, analogous to readout error correction processes.)

Cross Links

Noisy Qubits (Error Impact)

Noise impacts the performance of quantum algorithms, making error mitigation essential through AI-based decoders and virtual distillation techniques^[270]^[340]. Decoders can effectively reduce errors^[145]^[307], while virtual distillation helps purify quantum states^[308]^[309].

From sources: Noise affects algorithm performance^[270]^[340], making mitigation essential^[145]^[307].

Sources

[1] Yunfei Wang and Junyu Liu 03-2024 QML concepts, NISQ techniques, and fault-tolerant approaches, including fundamental concepts, algorithms, and statistical learning theory.
[2] Yuri Alexeev et al. 12-2025 How AI advances QC challenges across hardware and software, from device design to applications, highlighting future opportunities and obstacles.
[3] Sukhpal Singh Gill et al. 04-2025 Examining foundations, visions, hardware advancements, quantum cryptography, software, and scalability, discussing challenges and trends in QC.
[4] V. Raseena 12-2025 Quantum computing:foundations, algorithms, and emerging applications.
[5] Variational Quantum Algorithms: From Theory to NISQ-Era Applications Challenges and Opportunities
[6] A Survey on Quantum Optimization Algorithms. ijrpr, 2025.
[7] Artificial intelligence for quantum computing. Nature Communications, 2025.
[8] AI in Quantum Computing: Why NVIDIA-lead Researchers Say It's Key. The Quantum Insider, Dec 2025.
[9] Quantum Computing Industry Trends 2025: A Year of Breakthrough Milestones and Commercial Transition. SpinQ, Oct 2025.
[10] Quantum Computing: Vision and Challenges.
[11] The year to become Quantum-Ready. Microsoft Azure Quantum Blog, Jan 2025.
[12] The Year of Quantum: From concept to reality in 2025. McKinsey, Jun 2025.
[13] Quantum computing: foundations, algorithms, and emerging applications. Frontiers in Quantum Science and Technology, 2025.
[14] Unlocking the Power of Quantum Computing with Practical Benchmarking Tools. cs.lbl.gov, Dec 2025.
[15] Quantum Echoes algorithm is a big step toward real-world applications for quantum computing. Google Blog, Oct 2025.

The Learning Quiz

References

↑ S. Aaronson. Read the fine print. Nature Physics, 11(4):291–293, 2015. doi:10.1038/nphys3270
↑ ^2.0 ^2.1 ^2.2 ^2.3 ^2.4 S. Aaronson. Shadow tomography of quantum states. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2018), pages 325–338, 2018. doi:10.1145/3188745.3188807
↑ S. Aaronson. Shadow tomography of quantum states. SIAM Journal on Computing, 49(5):STOC18–368–STOC18–394, 2020. doi:10.1137/18M120275X
↑ S. Aaronson and G. N. Rothblum. Gentle measurement of quantum states and differential privacy. arXiv preprint [arXiv:1905.06217], 2019. No published DOI.
↑ D. Amaro, C. Modica, M. Rosenkranz, M. Fiorentini, M. Benedetti, and M. Lubasch. Filtering variational quantum algorithms for combinatorial optimization. Quantum Science and Technology, 7(1):015021, Jan. 2022. ISSN 2058-9565. doi: 10.1088/2058-9565/ac3e54. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/ac3e54.
↑ ^6.0 ^6.1 A. Anand, M. Degroote, and A. Aspuru-Guzik. Natural evolutionary strategies for variational quantum computation. Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 2(4): 045012, jul 2021. doi: 10.1088/2632-2153/abf3ac. URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F2632-2153%2Fabf3ac.
↑ ^7.0 ^7.1 A. Andreassen, I. Feige, C. Frye, and M. D. Schwartz. Junipr: a framework for unsupervised machine learning in particle physics. The European Physical Journal C, 79:1–24, 2019.
↑ ^8.0 ^8.1 ^8.2 ^8.3 ^8.4 A. Arrasmith, M. Cerezo, P. Czarnik, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles. Effect of barren plateaus on gradient-free optimization. Quantum, 5:558, Oct. 2021. ISSN 2521-327X. doi: 10.22331/q-2021-10-05-558. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-10-05-558.
↑ ^9.0 ^9.1 ^9.2 ^9.3 A. Arrasmith, Z. Holmes, M. Cerezo, and P. J. Coles. Equivalence of quantum barren plateaus to cost concentration and narrow gorges. Quantum Science and Technology, 7(4):045015, Aug. 2022. ISSN 2058-9565. doi: 10.1088/2058-9565/ac7d06. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/ac7d06.
↑ S. Arunachalam, V. Gheorghiu, T. Jochym-O’Connor, M. Mosca, and P. V. Srinivasan. On the robustness of bucket brigade quantum ram. New Journal of Physics, 17(12):123010, Dec. 2015. ISSN 1367-2630. doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/17/12/123010. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/17/12/123010.
↑ H. J. M. J. au2, A. Zaman, and H. Y. Wong. Step-by-step hhl algorithm walkthrough to enhance the understanding of critical quantum computing concepts, 2023.
↑ B. Barak and K. Marwaha. Classical algorithms and quantum limitations for maximum cut on high-girth graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.05900, 2021.
↑ ^13.0 ^13.1 ^13.2 P. K. Barkoutsos, G. Nannicini, A. Robert, I. Tavernelli, and S. Woerner. Improving variational quantum optimization using cvar. Quantum, 4:256, 2020.
↑ S. Becker, D. Englund, and B. Stiller. An optoacoustic field-programmable perceptron for recurrent neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.01543, 2023.
↑ M. Benedetti, D. Garcia-Pintos, O. Perdomo, V. Leyton-Ortega, Y. Nam, and A. Perdomo-Ortiz. A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits. npj Quantum Information, 5(1):45, 2019.
↑ ^16.0 ^16.1 M. Benedetti, M. Fiorentini, and M. Lubasch. Hardware-efficient variational quantum algorithms for time evolution. Physical Review Research, 3(3), July 2021. ISSN 2643-1564. doi: 10.1103/physrevresearch.3.033083. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.033083.
↑ K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, et al. Noisy intermediate-scale quantum (nisq) algorithms (2021). arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.08448, 2021.
↑ ^18.0 ^18.1 J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd. Quantum machine learning. Nature, 549(7671):195–202, 2017.
↑ ^19.0 ^19.1 M. Bilkis, M. Cerezo, G. Verdon, P. J. Coles, and L. Cincio. A semi-agnostic ansatz with variable structure for variational quantum algorithms. Quantum Machine Intelligence, 5(2), 2023. ISSN 2524-4914. doi: 10.1007/s42484-023-00132-1. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42484-023-00132-1.
↑ L. Bittel and M. Kliesch. Training variational quantum algorithms is np-hard. Phys. Rev. Lett., 127:120502, Sep 2021. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.120502. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.120502.
↑ K. Bu, D. E. Koh, L. Li, Q. Luo, and Y. Zhang. Statistical complexity of quantum circuits. Physical Review A, 105(6), June 2022. ISSN 2469-9934. doi: 10.1103/physreva.105.062431. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.105.062431.
↑ K. Bu, D. E. Koh, L. Li, Q. Luo, and Y. Zhang. Effects of quantum resources and noise on the statistical complexity of quantum circuits. Quantum Science and Technology, 8(2):025013, Feb. 2023. ISSN 2058-9565. doi: 10.1088/2058-9565/acb56a. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/acb56a.
↑ K. Bu, D. E. Koh, R. J. Garcia, and A. Jaffe. Classical shadows with pauli-invariant unitary ensembles. npj Quantum Information, 10(1), Jan. 2024. ISSN 2056-6387. doi: 10.1038/s41534-023-00801-w. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41534-023-00801-w.
↑ D. Bultrini, S. Wang, P. Czarnik, M. H. Gordon, M. Cerezo, P. J. Coles, and L. Cincio. The battle of clean and dirty qubits in the era of partial error correction. Quantum, 7:1060, July 2023. ISSN 2521-327X. doi: 10.22331/q-2023-07-13-1060. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2023-07-13-1060.
↑ ^25.0 ^25.1 ^25.2 M. Cerezo, A. Sone, T. Volkoff, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles. Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits. Nature Communications, 12(1), Mar. 2021. ISSN 2041-1723. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21728-w. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21728-w.
↑ ^26.0 ^26.1 M. Cerezo, K. Sharma, A. Arrasmith, and P. J. Coles. Variational quantum state eigensolver. npj Quantum Information, 8(1):113, 2022.
↑ M. Cerezo, G. Verdon, H.-Y. Huang, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles. Challenges and opportunities in quantum machine learning. Nature Computational Science, 2(9):567–576, 2022.
↑ E. Cervero Martín, K. Plekhanov, and M. Lubasch. Barren plateaus in quantum tensor network optimization. Quantum, 7:974, Apr. 2023. ISSN 2521-327X. doi: 10.22331/q-2023-04-13-974. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2023-04-13-974.
↑ H.-H. Chang. An introduction to error-correcting codes: From classical to quantum, 2006.
↑ S. Chen, W. Yu, P. Zeng, and S. T. Flammia. Robust shadow estimation. PRX Quantum, 2(3), Sept. 2021. ISSN 2691-3399. doi: 10.1103/prxquantum.2.030348. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.030348.
↑ ^31.0 ^31.1 S. Cheng, J. Chen, and L. Wang. Information perspective to probabilistic modeling: Boltzmann machines versus born machines. Entropy, 20(8):583, 2018.
↑ ^32.0 ^32.1 N.-H. Chia, A. Gilyén, T. Li, H.-H. Lin, E. Tang, and C. Wang. Sampling-based sublinear low-rank matrix arithmetic framework for dequantizing quantum machine learning. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’20. ACM, June 2020. doi: 10.1145/3357713.3384314. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3357713.3384314.
↑ ^33.0 ^33.1 L. Chizat, E. Oyallon, and F. Bach. On lazy training in differentiable programming, 2020.
↑ C. Ciliberto, M. Herbster, A. D. Ialongo, M. Pontil, A. Rocchetto, S. Severini, and L. Wossnig. Quantum machine learning: a classical perspective. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 474(2209):20170551, Jan. 2018. ISSN 1471-2946. doi: 10.1098/rspa.2017.0551. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2017.0551.
↑ ^35.0 ^35.1 L. Cincio, K. Rudinger, M. Sarovar, and P. J. Coles. Machine learning of noise-resilient quantum circuits. PRX Quantum, 2(1), Feb. 2021. ISSN 2691-3399. doi: 10.1103/prxquantum.2.010324. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.010324.
↑ ^36.0 ^36.1 ^36.2 J. Cotler, N. Hunter-Jones, J. Liu, and B. Yoshida. Chaos, complexity, and random matrices. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2017(11), Nov. 2017. ISSN 1029-8479. doi: 10.1007/jhep11(2017)048. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2017)048.
↑ J. Cotler, H.-Y. Huang, and J. R. McClean. Revisiting dequantization and quantum advantage in learning tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.00811, 2021.
↑ ^38.0 ^38.1 P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, P. J. Coles, and L. Cincio. Error mitigation with clifford quantum-circuit data. Quantum, 5:592, Nov. 2021. ISSN 2521-327X. doi: 10.22331/q-2021-11-26-592. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-11-26-592.
↑ A. Deshpande, P. Niroula, O. Shtanko, A. V. Gorshkov, B. Fefferman, and M. J. Gullans. Tight bounds on the convergence of noisy random circuits to the uniform distribution. PRX Quantum, 3(4), Dec. 2022. ISSN 2691-3399. doi: 10.1103/prxquantum.3.040329. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.040329.
↑ ^40.0 ^40.1 V. Dunjko and P. Wittek. A non-review of quantum machine learning: trends and explorations. Quantum Views, 4:32, 03 2020. doi: 10.22331/qv-2020-03-17-32.
↑ ^41.0 ^41.1 ^41.2 ^41.3 ^41.4 ^41.5 A. Elben, S. T. Flammia, H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, J. Preskill, B. Vermersch, and P. Zoller. The randomized measurement toolbox. Nature Reviews Physics, 5(1):9–24, Dec. 2022. ISSN 2522-5820. doi: 10.1038/s42254-022-00535-2. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s42254-022-00535-2.
↑ S. Endo, Z. Cai, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan. Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms and quantum error mitigation. Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 90(3):032001, 2021.
↑ T. J. Evans, R. Harper, and S. T. Flammia. Scalable bayesian hamiltonian learning, 2019.
↑ E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014.
↑ R. Feynman, A. Hey, and R. Allen. Lectures On Computation. Advanced book program. Basic Books, 1996. ISBN 9780201489910. URL https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=-olQAAAAMAAJ.
↑ A. Garcia-Saez and J. Riu. Quantum observables for continuous control of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm via reinforcement learning, 2019.
↑ A. Gilyén, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe. Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’19. ACM, June 2019. doi: 10.1145/3313276.3316366. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3313276.3316366.
↑ C. E. Granade, C. Ferrie, N. Wiebe, and D. G. Cory. Robust online hamiltonian learning. New Journal of Physics, 14(10):103013, Oct. 2012. ISSN 1367-2630. doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/14/10/103013. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/14/10/103013.
↑ H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall. An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer. Nature communications, 10(1):3007, 2019.
↑ ^50.0 ^50.1 ^50.2 L. K. Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search, 1996.
↑ M. V. Gustafsson, T. Aref, A. F. Kockum, M. K. Ekström, G. Johansson, and P. Delsing. Propagating phonons coupled to an artificial atom. Science, 346(6206):207–211, 2014. ISSN 1095-9203. doi: 10.1126/science.1257219. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1257219.
↑ H. HAFFNER, C. ROOS, and R. BLATT. Quantum computing with trapped ions. Physics Reports, 469(4):155–203, dec 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2008.09.003. URL https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.physrep.2008.09.003.
↑ S. Hakkaku, Y. Tashima, K. Mitarai, W. Mizukami, and K. Fujii. Quantifying fermionic nonlinearity of quantum circuits. Physical Review Research, 4(4), Nov. 2022. ISSN 2643-1564. doi: 10.1103/physrevresearch.4.043100. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.043100.
↑ C. T. Hann. Practicality of Quantum Random Access Memory. PhD thesis, Yale University, 2021.
↑ ^55.0 ^55.1 C. T. Hann, C.-L. Zou, Y. Zhang, Y. Chu, R. J. Schoelkopf, S. Girvin, and L. Jiang. Hardware-efficient quantum random access memory with hybrid quantum acoustic systems. Phys. Rev. Lett., 123:250501, Dec 2019.
↑ C. T. Hann, C.-L. Zou, Y. Zhang, Y. Chu, R. J. Schoelkopf, S. M. Girvin, and L. Jiang. Hardware-efficient quantum random access memory with hybrid quantum acoustic systems. Phys. Rev. Lett., 123:250501, Dec 2019.
↑ A. W. Harrow and J. C. Napp. Low-depth gradient measurements can improve convergence in variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms. Physical Review Letters, 126(14), apr 2021. doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.126.140502. URL https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevlett.126.140502.
↑ A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd. Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations. Physical review letters, 103(15):150502, 2009.
↑ A. W. Harrow, C. Y.-Y. Lin, and A. Montanaro. Sequential measurements, disturbance and property testing. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Jan. 2017. doi: 10.1137/1.9781611974782.105. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611974782.105.
↑ Z. Holmes, K. Sharma, M. Cerezo, and P. J. Coles. Connecting ansatz expressibility to gradient magnitudes and barren plateaus. PRX Quantum, 3(1), Jan. 2022. ISSN 2691-3399. doi: 10.1103/prxquantum.3.010313. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.010313.
↑ H.-Y. Huang, K. Bharti, and P. Rebentrost. Near-term quantum algorithms for linear systems of equations. arXiv e-prints, art. arXiv:1909.07344, Sept. 2019. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1909.07344.
↑ H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill. Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements. Nature Physics, 16(10):1050–1057, jun 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41567-020-0932-7. URL https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fs41567-020-0932-7.
↑ H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill. Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements. Nature Physics, 16(10):1050–1057, June 2020. ISSN 1745-2481. doi: 10.1038/s41567-020-0932-7. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-0932-7.
↑ H.-Y. Huang, M. Broughton, M. Mohseni, R. Babbush, S. Boixo, H. Neven, and J. R. McClean. Power of data in quantum machine learning. Nature Communications, 12(1), may 2021. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-22539-9. URL https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fs41467-021-22539-9.
↑ H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill. Efficient estimation of pauli observables by derandomization. Phys. Rev. Lett., 127:030503, Jul 2021. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.030503. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.030503.
↑ ^66.0 ^66.1 ^66.2 ^66.3 H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill. Information-theoretic bounds on quantum advantage in machine learning. Physical Review Letters, 126(19):190505, 2021.
↑ ^67.0 ^67.1 H.-Y. Huang, M. Broughton, J. Cotler, S. Chen, J. Li, M. Mohseni, H. Neven, R. Babbush, R. Kueng, J. Preskill, et al. Quantum advantage in learning from experiments. Science, 376(6598):1182–1186, 2022.
↑ ^68.0 ^68.1 H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, G. Torlai, V. V. Albert, and J. Preskill. Provably efficient machine learning for quantum many-body problems. Science, 377(6613), Sept. 2022. ISSN 1095-9203. doi: 10.1126/science.abk3333. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.abk3333.
↑ P. Jain and P. Kar. Non-convex optimization for machine learning. Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning, 10(3–4):142–336, 2017. ISSN 1935-8245. doi: 10.1561/2200000058. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/2200000058.
↑ C. Jin, P. Netrapalli, R. Ge, S. M. Kakade, and M. I. Jordan. On nonconvex optimization for machine learning: Gradients, stochasticity, and saddle points, 2019.
↑ A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta. Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets. nature, 549(7671):242–246, 2017.
↑ I. Kerenidis and A. Prakash. Quantum recommendation systems, 2016.
↑ B. T. Kiani, S. Lloyd, and R. Maity. Learning unitaries by gradient descent, 2020.
↑ I. D. Kivlichan, J. McClean, N. Wiebe, C. Gidney, A. Aspuru-Guzik, G. K.-L. Chan, and R. Babbush. Quantum simulation of electronic structure with linear depth and connectivity. Physical review letters, 120(11):110501, 2018.
↑ D. E. Koh and S. Grewal. Classical shadows with noise. Quantum, 6:776, Aug. 2022. ISSN 2521-327X. doi: 10.22331/q-2022-08-16-776. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2022-08-16-776.
↑ J. S. Kottmann, M. Krenn, T. H. Kyaw, S. Alperin-Lea, and A. Aspuru-Guzik. Quantum computer-aided design of quantum optics hardware. Quantum Science and Technology, 6(3):035010, 2021.
↑ P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver. A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits. Applied physics reviews, 6(2), 2019.
↑ M. Krenn, M. Erhard, and A. Zeilinger. Computer-inspired quantum experiments. Nature Reviews Physics, 2(11):649–661, 2020.
↑ M. Larocca, N. Ju, D. Garcia-Martin, P. J. Coles, and M. Cerezo. Theory of overparametrization in quantum neural networks. Nature Computational Science, 3(6):542–551, 2023. ISSN 2662-8457. doi: 10.1038/s43588-023-00467-6. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s43588-023-00467-6.
↑ R. LaRose and B. Coyle. Robust data encodings for quantum classifiers. Physical Review A, 102(3), Sept. 2020. ISSN 2469-9934. doi: 10.1103/physreva.102.032420. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.102.032420.
↑ R. LaRose, A. Tikku, E. O’Neel-Judy, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles. Variational quantum state diagonalization. npj Quantum Information, 5(1), 2019. ISSN 2056-6387. doi: 10.1038/s41534-019-0167-6. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41534-019-0167-6.
↑ J. Lee, W. J. Huggins, M. Head-Gordon, and K. B. Whaley. Generalized unitary coupled cluster wave functions for quantum computation. Journal of chemical theory and computation, 15(1):311–324, 2018.
↑ L. Li, M. Fan, M. Coram, P. Riley, S. Leichenauer, et al. Quantum optimization with a novel gibbs objective function and ansatz architecture search. Physical Review Research, 2(2):023074, 2020.
↑ J. Liu. Spectral form factors and late time quantum chaos. Physical Review D, 98(8), Oct. 2018. ISSN 2470-0029. doi: 10.1103/physrevd.98.086026. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.086026.
↑ J. Liu. Scrambling and decoding the charged quantum information. Physical Review Research, 2(4), Oct. 2020. ISSN 2643-1564. doi: 10.1103/physrevresearch.2.043164. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.043164.
↑ J. Liu, Z. Lin, and L. Jiang. Laziness, barren plateau, and noise in machine learning, 2022.
↑ J. Liu, F. Tacchino, J. R. Glick, L. Jiang, and A. Mezzacapo. Representation learning via quantum neural tangent kernels. PRX Quantum, 3(3):030323, 2022.
↑ J. Liu, F. Wilde, A. A. Mele, L. Jiang, and J. Eisert. Noise can be helpful for variational quantum algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.06723, 2022.
↑ J. Liu, M. Liu, J.-P. Liu, Z. Ye, Y. Wang, Y. Alexeev, J. Eisert, and L. Jiang. Towards provably efficient quantum algorithms for large-scale machine-learning models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03428, 2023.
↑ J.-P. Liu, H. Ø. Kolden, H. K. Krovi, N. F. Loureiro, K. Trivisa, and A. M. Childs. Efficient quantum algorithm for dissipative nonlinear differential equations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(35), 2021. ISSN 1091-6490. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2026805118. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2026805118.
↑ S. Lloyd. Universal quantum simulators. Science, 273(5278):1073–1078, 1996.
↑ S. Lloyd, M. Mohseni, and P. Rebentrost. Quantum algorithms for supervised and unsupervised machine learning, 2013.
↑ S. Lloyd, M. Mohseni, and P. Rebentrost. Quantum principal component analysis. Nature Physics, 10(9):631–633, July 2014. ISSN 1745-2481. doi: 10.1038/nphys3029. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys3029.
↑ M. Lubasch, J. Joo, P. Moinier, M. Kiffner, and D. Jaksch. Variational quantum algorithms for nonlinear problems. Physical Review A, 101(1), Jan. 2020. ISSN 2469-9934. doi: 10.1103/physreva.101.010301. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.101.010301.
↑ ^95.0 ^95.1 C. O. Marrero, M. Kieferová, and N. Wiebe. Entanglement induced barren plateaus, 2021.
↑ I. Marvian and S. Lloyd. Universal quantum emulator, 2016.
↑ ^97.0 ^97.1 J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru-Guzik. The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms. New Journal of Physics, 18(2):023023, 2016.
↑ ^98.0 ^98.1 ^98.2 ^98.3 J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H. Neven. Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes. Nature Communications, 9(1), Nov. 2018. ISSN 2041-1723. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07090-4. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07090-4.
↑ K. Mitarai and K. Fujii. Methodology for replacing indirect measurements with direct measurements. Physical Review Research, 1(1), aug 2019. doi: 10.1103/physrevresearch.1.013006. URL https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevresearch.1.013006.
↑ N. Moll, P. Barkoutsos, L. S. Bishop, J. M. Chow, A. Cross, D. J. Egger, S. Filipp, A. Fuhrer, J. M. Gambetta, M. Ganzhorn, et al. Quantum optimization using variational algorithms on near-term quantum devices. Quantum Science and Technology, 3(3):030503, 2018.
↑ K. M. Nakanishi, K. Fujii, and S. Todo. Sequential minimal optimization for quantum-classical hybrid algorithms. Physical Review Research, 2(4), oct 2020. doi: 10.1103/physrevresearch.2.043158. URL https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevresearch.2.043158.
↑ M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press, 2010. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511976667.
↑ A. O’Connell, M. Hofheinz, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, M. Lenander, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, D. Sank, H. Wang, M. Weides, J. Wenner, J. M. Martinis, and A. Cleland. Quantum ground state and single-phonon control of a mechanical resonator. Nature, 464(7289):697—703, April 2010. ISSN 0028-0836. doi: 10.1038/nature08967. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08967.
↑ R. O’Donnell and J. Wright. Efficient quantum tomography, 2015.
↑ M. Ostaszewski, E. Grant, and M. Benedetti. Structure optimization for parameterized quantum circuits. Quantum, 5:391, jan 2021. doi: 10.22331/q-2021-01-28-391. URL https://doi.org/10.22331%2Fq-2021-01-28-391.
↑ T. L. Patti, K. Najafi, X. Gao, and S. F. Yelin. Entanglement devised barren plateau mitigation. Physical Review Research, 3(3), July 2021. ISSN 2643-1564. doi: 10.1103/physrevresearch.3.033090. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.033090.
↑ A. Pérez-Salinas, A. Cervera-Lierta, E. Gil-Fuster, and J. I. Latorre. Data re-uploading for a universal quantum classifier. Quantum, 4:226, 2020.
↑ A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’brien. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nature communications, 5(1):4213, 2014.
↑ ^109.0 ^109.1 J. Platt. Sequential minimal optimization: A fast algorithm for training support vector machines. Technical Report MSR-TR-98-14, Microsoft, April 1998.
↑ J. Preskill. Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond. Quantum, 2:79, 2018.
↑ ^111.0 ^111.1 D. A. Roberts and B. Yoshida. Chaos and complexity by design. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2017(4), Apr. 2017. ISSN 1029-8479. doi: 10.1007/jhep04(2017)121. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2017)121.
↑ D. A. Roberts, S. Yaida, and B. Hanin. The principles of deep learning theory. Cambridge University Press Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022.
↑ ^113.0 ^113.1 J. Roffe. Quantum error correction: an introductory guide. Contemporary Physics, 60(3):226–245, July 2019. ISSN 1366-5812. doi: 10.1080/00107514.2019.1667078. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00107514.2019.1667078.
↑ ^114.0 ^114.1 ^114.2 ^114.3 ^114.4 ^114.5 ^114.6 ^114.7 J. J. Sakurai and J. Napolitano. Modern Quantum Mechanics. Quantum physics, quantum information and quantum computation. Cambridge University Press, 10 2020. ISBN 978-0-8053-8291-4, 978-1-108-52742-2, 978-1-108-58728-0. doi: 10.1017/9781108587280.
↑ K. Sharma, S. Khatri, M. Cerezo, and P. J. Coles. Noise resilience of variational quantum compiling. New Journal of Physics, 22(4):043006, Apr. 2020. ISSN 1367-2630. doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/ab784c. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ab784c.
↑ K. Sharma, M. Cerezo, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles. Trainability of dissipative perceptron-based quantum neural networks. Physical Review Letters, 128(18), May 2022. ISSN 1079-7114. doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.128.180505. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.180505.
↑ ^117.0 ^117.1 P. Shor. Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring. In Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 124–134, 1994. doi: 10.1109/SFCS.1994.365700.
↑ C. Song, K. Xu, W. Liu, C.-p. Yang, S.-B. Zheng, H. Deng, Q. Xie, K. Huang, Q. Guo, L. Zhang, P. Zhang, D. Xu, D. Zheng, X. Zhu, H. Wang, Y.-A. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, S. Han, and J.-W. Pan. 10-qubit entanglement and parallel logic operations with a superconducting circuit. Physical Review Letters, 119(18), Nov. 2017. ISSN 1079-7114. doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.119.180511. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.180511.
↑ ^119.0 ^119.1 ^119.2 ^119.3 G. Struchalin, Y. A. Zagorovskii, E. Kovlakov, S. Straupe, and S. Kulik. Experimental estimation of quantum state properties from classical shadows. PRX Quantum, 2:010307, Jan 2021. doi: 10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.010307. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.010307.
↑ M. Suzuki. Generalized Trotter’s formula and systematic approximants of exponential operators and inner derivations with applications to many-body problems. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 51(2):183–190, June 1976. doi: 10.1007/BF01609348.
↑ ^121.0 ^121.1 ^121.2 E. Tang. A quantum-inspired classical algorithm for recommendation systems. In Proceedings of the 51st annual ACM SIGACT symposium on theory of computing, pages 217–228, 2019.
↑ E. Tang. Quantum principal component analysis only achieves an exponential speedup because of its state preparation assumptions. Physical Review Letters, 127(6), Aug. 2021. ISSN 1079-7114. doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.127.060503. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.060503.
↑ ^123.0 ^123.1 ^123.2 A. G. Taube and R. J. Bartlett. New perspectives on unitary coupled-cluster theory. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, 106(15):3393–3401, Jan. 2006. doi: 10.1002/qua.21198.
↑ K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta. Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits. Physical Review Letters, 119(18), Nov. 2017. ISSN 1079-7114. doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.119.180509. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.180509.
↑ ^125.0 ^125.1 A. V. Uvarov and J. D. Biamonte. On barren plateaus and cost function locality in variational quantum algorithms. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 54(24):245301, May 2021. ISSN 1751-8121. doi: 10.1088/1751-8121/abfac7. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/abfac7.
↑ G. Verdon, M. Broughton, J. R. McClean, K. J. Sung, R. Babbush, Z. Jiang, H. Neven, and M. Mohseni. Learning to learn with quantum neural networks via classical neural networks, 2019.
↑ ^127.0 ^127.1 S. Wang, P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, M. Cerezo, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles. Can error mitigation improve trainability of noisy variational quantum algorithms?, 2021.
↑ S. Wang, E. Fontana, M. Cerezo, K. Sharma, A. Sone, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles. Noise-induced barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms. Nature Communications, 12(1), Nov. 2021. ISSN 2041-1723. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-27045-6. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27045-6.
↑ ^129.0 ^129.1 Y. Wang, Y. Alexeev, L. Jiang, F. T. Chong, and J. Liu. Fundamental causal bounds of quantum random access memories. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13460, 2023.
↑ M. M. Wauters, E. Panizon, G. B. Mbeng, and G. E. Santoro. Reinforcement-learning-assisted quantum optimization. Physical Review Research, 2(3), sep 2020. doi: 10.1103/physrevresearch.2.033446. URL https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevresearch.2.033446.
↑ ^131.0 ^131.1 ^131.2 D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer. Progress towards practical quantum variational algorithms. Physical Review A, 92(4):042303, 2015.
↑ ^132.0 ^132.1 ^132.2 ^132.3 N. Wiebe, C. Granade, C. Ferrie, and D. Cory. Hamiltonian learning and certification using quantum resources. Physical Review Letters, 112(19), 2014. ISSN 1079-7114. doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.112.190501. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.190501.
↑ ^133.0 ^133.1 N. Wiebe, C. Granade, and D. G. Cory. Quantum bootstrapping via compressed quantum hamiltonian learning. New Journal of Physics, 17(2):022005, Feb. 2015. ISSN 1367-2630. doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/17/2/022005. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/17/2/022005.
↑ D. Wierstra, T. Schaul, T. Glasmachers, Y. Sun, and J. Schmidhuber. Natural evolution strategies, 2011.
↑ ^135.0 ^135.1 ^135.2 B. Wu and D. E. Koh. Error-mitigated fermionic classical shadows on noisy quantum devices, 2023.
↑ ^136.0 ^136.1 J. Yao, M. Bukov, and L. Lin. Policy gradient based quantum approximate optimization algorithm, 2020.
↑ ^137.0 ^137.1 M. H. Yung, J. Casanova, A. Mezzacapo, J. McClean, L. Lamata, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and E. Solano. From transistor to trapped-ion computers for quantum chemistry. Scientific Reports, 4(1), 1 2014. doi: 10.1038/srep03589.
↑ B. Zhang, J. Liu, X.-C. Wu, L. Jiang, and Q. Zhuang. Dynamical phase transition in quantum neural networks with large depth. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.18144, 2023.
↑ ^139.0 ^139.1 T. Zhao, G. Carleo, J. Stokes, and S. Veerapaneni. Natural evolution strategies and variational monte carlo. Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 2(2):02LT01, dec 2020. doi: 10.1088/2632-2153/abcb50. URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F2632-2153%2Fabcb50.
↑ Variational Quantum Algorithms: From Theory to NISQ-Era Applications Challenges and Opportunities. Preprints.org, Aug 2025. URL https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202508.1482.
↑ A Survey on Quantum Optimization Algorithms. ijrpr, 2025. URL https://ijrpr.com/uploads/V6ISSUE11/IJRPR55163.pdf.
↑ A review on Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm and its variants. Physics Reports, 2024. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.02.002 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0370157324001078.
↑ Alexeev, Y. et al. Quantum computer systems for scientific discovery. *PRX Quantum* **2**, 017001 (2021).
↑ Bluvstein, D. et al. Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays. *Nature* **626**, 58–65 (2024).
↑ ^145.0 ^145.1 ^145.2 ^145.3 ^145.4 Ryan-Anderson, C. et al. Realization of real-time fault-tolerant quantum error correction. *Phys. Rev. X* **11**, 041058 (2021).
↑ ^146.0 ^146.1 Li, Y. et al. Quantum computing for scientific computing: A survey. *Future Gener. Comput. Syst.* **155**, 102012 (2024).
↑ ^147.0 ^147.1 Arute, F. et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. *Nature* **574**, 505–510 (2019).
↑ Erdman, P. A. & Noé, F. Model-free optimization of power/efficiency tradeoffs in quantum thermal machines using reinforcement learning. *PNAS Nexus* **2**, pgad248 (2023).
↑ ^149.0 ^149.1 Willsch, D., Willsch, M., Jin, F., Michielsen, K. & De Raedt, H. Gpu-accelerated simulations of quantum annealing and the quantum approximate optimization algorithm. *Comput. Phys. Commun.* **278**, 108417 (2022).
↑ ^150.0 ^150.1 ^150.2 ^150.3 Thomson, S. J. & Eisert, J. Unravelling quantum dynamics using flow equations. *Nat. Phys.* **20**, 286–293 (2024).
↑ Bandi, A., Adapa, P. V. S. R. & Kuchi, Y. E. V. P. K. The power of generative ai: A review of requirements, models, input-output formats, evaluation metrics, and challenges. *Future Internet* **15**, 260 (2023).
↑ ^152.0 ^152.1 Zhou, C. et al. A comprehensive survey on pretrained foundation models: a history from BERT to ChatGPT. *Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern.* https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-024-02443-6 (2024).
↑ Vaswani, A. Attention is all you need. *In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems* (2017).
↑ Achiam, J. et al. Gpt-4 technical report. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774 (2023).
↑ ^155.0 ^155.1 Yenduri, G. et al. Gpt (generative pre-trained transformer)-a comprehensive review on enabling technologies, potential applications, emerging challenges, and future directions. *IEEE Access* (2024).
↑ Cheng, K. et al. Exploring the potential of gpt-4 in biomedical engineering: the dawn of a new era. *Ann. Biomed. Eng.* **51**, 1645–1653 (2023).
↑ Liu, Y. et al. Generative artificial intelligence and its applications in materials science: Current situation and future perspectives. *J. Materiomics* **9**, 798–816 (2023).
↑ Dunjko, V. & Briegel, H. J. Artificial intelligence and machine learning for quantum technologies. *Phys. Rev. A* **107**, 010101 (2023).
↑ ^159.0 ^159.1 Hornik, K., Stinchcombe, M. & White, H. Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators. *Neural Netw.* **2**, 359–366 (1989).
↑ ^160.0 ^160.1 Acampora, G. et al. Quantum computing and artificial intelligence: status and perspectives. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.23860 (2025).
↑ ^161.0 ^161.1 ^161.2 ^161.3 Chen, M. et al. Grovergpt-2: Simulating grover's algorithm via chain-of-thought reasoning and quantum-native tokenization. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.04880 (2025).
↑ ^162.0 ^162.1 ^162.2 Peral-García, D., Cruz-Benito, J. & García-Peñalvo, F. J. Systematic literature review: Quantum machine learning and its applications. *Artif. Intell. Rev.* **53**, 100030 (2024).
↑ ^163.0 ^163.1 Zhuhadar, L. P. & Lytras, M. D. The application of automl techniques in diabetes diagnosis: current approaches, performance, and future directions. *Sustainability* **15**, 13484 (2023).
↑ LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y. & Hinton, G. Deep learning. *nature* **521**, 436–444 (2015).
↑ ^165.0 ^165.1 Janiesch, C., Zschech, P. & Heinrich, K. Machine learning and deep learning. *Electron. Mark.* **31**, 685–695 (2021).
↑ Bernardo, J. et al. Generative or discriminative? getting the best of both worlds. *Bayesian Stat.* **8**, 3–24 (2007).
↑ ^167.0 ^167.1 Arulkumaran, K., Deisenroth, M. P., Brundage, M. & Bharath, A. A. Deep reinforcement learning: A brief survey. *IEEE Signal Process. Mag.* **34**, 26–38 (2017).
↑ Shakya, A. K., Pillai, G. & Chakrabarty, S. Reinforcement learning algorithms: A brief survey. *Expert Syst. Appl.* **231**, 120495 (2023).
↑ ^169.0 ^169.1 Chowdhary, K. Fundamentals of Artificial Intelligence. (2020).
↑ Khurana, D., Koli, A., Khatter, K. & Singh, S. Natural language processing: state of the art, current trends and challenges. *Multimed. Tools Appl.* **82**, 3713–3744 (2023).
↑ ^171.0 ^171.1 Irsoy, O. & Cardie, C. Deep recursive neural networks for compositionality in language. In *Proceedings of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems* (2014).
↑ Socher, R., Lin, C. C., Manning, C. & Ng, A. Y. Parsing natural scenes and natural language with recursive neural networks. In *Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-11)*, 129–136 (2011).
↑ ^173.0 ^173.1 Han, K. et al. A survey on vision transformer. *IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.* **45**, 87–110 (2022).
↑ ^174.0 ^174.1 ^174.2 ^174.3 Ho, J., Jain, A. & Abbeel, P. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. *Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst.* **33**, 6840–6851 (2020).
↑ ^175.0 ^175.1 Ramesh, A., Dhariwal, P., Nichol, A., Chu, C. & Chen, M. Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.06125 (2022).
↑ ^176.0 ^176.1 Siddiqi, I. Engineering high-coherence superconducting qubits. *Nat. Rev. Mater.* **6**, 875–891 (2021).
↑ ^177.0 ^177.1 Marshall, M. C. et al. High-precision mapping of diamond crystal strain using quantum interferometry. *Phys. Rev. Appl.* **17**, 024041 (2022).
↑ Usman, M., Wong, Y. Z., Hill, C. D. & Hollenberg, L. C. Framework for atomic-level characterisation of quantum computer arrays by machine learning. *NPJ Comput. Mater.* **6**, 19 (2020).
↑ Scully, M. O. & Zubairy, M. S. *Quantum Optics* (Cambridge university press, 1997).
↑ Menke, T. et al. Automated design of superconducting circuits and its application to 4-local couplers. *NPJ Quantum Inf.* **7**, 1–8 (2021).
↑ ^181.0 ^181.1 Menke, T. et al. Demonstration of tunable three-body interactions between superconducting qubits. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **129**, 220501 (2022).
↑ Rajabzadeh, T., Boulton-McKeehan, A., Bonkowsky, S., Schuster, D. I. & Safavi-Naeini, A. H. A general framework for gradient-based optimization of superconducting quantum circuits using qubit discovery as a case study. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.12704 (2024).
↑ ^183.0 ^183.1 Kumar, S., Tuli, S., Koch, J., Jha, N. & Houck, A. A. *Graph: High-Coherence Superconducting Circuit Optimization Using Graph Machine Learning*. (2024).
↑ Krenn, M., Kottmann, J. S., Tischler, N. & Aspuru-Guzik, A. Conceptual understanding through efficient automated design of quantum optical experiments. *Phys. Rev. X.* **11**, 031044 (2021).
↑ ^185.0 ^185.1 Flam-Shepherd, D. et al. Learning interpretable representations of entanglement in quantum optics experiments using deep generative models. *Nat. Mach. Intell.* **4**, 544–554 (2022).
↑ Cervera-Lierta, A., Krenn, M. & Aspuru-Guzik, A. Design of quantum optical experiments with logic artificial intelligence. *Quantum* **6**, 836 (2022).
↑ Li, Y. et al. Using reinforcement learning to guide graph state generation for photonic quantum computers. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.01038 (2024).
↑ Severin, B. et al. Cross-platform autonomous control of minimal kitaev chains. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.04596 (2024).
↑ ^189.0 ^189.1 Fouad, A. F., Youssry, A., El-Rafei, A. & Hammad, S. Model-free distortion canceling and control of quantum devices. *Quantum Sci. Technol.* **10**, 015002 (2025).
↑ Zhuang, F. et al. A comprehensive survey on transfer learning. *Proc. IEEE* **109**, 43–76 (2020).
↑ ^191.0 ^191.1 van Driel, D. et al. Cross-platform autonomous control of minimal kitaev chains. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.04596 (2024).
↑ Krenn, M., Malik, M., Fickler, R., Lapkiewicz, R. & Zeilinger, A. Automated search for new quantum experiments. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **116**, 090405 (2016).
↑ Wiebe, N., Granade, C., Ferrie, C. & Cory, D. G. Hamiltonian learning and certification using quantum resources. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **112**, 190501 (2014).
↑ Gentile, A. A. et al. Learning models of quantum systems from experiments. *Nat. Phys.* **17**, 837–843 (2021).
↑ ^195.0 ^195.1 Gebhart, V. et al. Learning quantum systems. *Nat. Rev. Phys.* **5**, 141–156 (2023).
↑ Flynn, B., Gentile, A. A., Wiebe, N., Santagati, R. & Laing, A. Quantum model learning agent: characterisation of quantum systems through machine learning. *N. J. Phys.* **24**, 053034 (2022).
↑ ^197.0 ^197.1 Sarma, B., Chen, J. & Borah, S. Precision quantum parameter inference with continuous observation. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.12650 (2024).
↑ Preskill, J. Quantum computing in the nsiq era and beyond. *Quantum* **2**, 79 (2018).
↑ ^199.0 ^199.1 Che, L. et al. Learning quantum hamiltonians from single-qubit measurements. *Phys. Rev. Res.* **3**, 023246 (2021).
↑ Luchnikov, I. A., Vintskevich, S. V., Grigoriev, D. A. & Filippov, S. N. Machine learning non-markovian quantum dynamics. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **124**, 140502 (2020).
↑ Banchi, L., Grant, E., Rocchetto, A. & Severini, S. Modelling non-markovian quantum processes with recurrent neural networks. *N. J. Phys.* **20**, 123030 (2018).
↑ Niu, M. Y. et al. Learning non-markovian quantum noise from moiré-enhanced swap spectroscopy with deep evolutionary algorithm. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1912.04368(2019).
↑ ^203.0 ^203.1 Youssry, A., Chapman, R. J., Peruzzo, A., Ferrie, C. & Tomamichel, M. Modeling and control of a reconfigurable photonic circuit using deep learning. *Quantum Sci. Technol.* **5**, 025001 (2020).
↑ Krastanov, S. et al. Unboxing quantum black box models: Learning non-markovian dynamics. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2009.03902 (2020).
↑ Youssry, A. et al. Experimental graybox quantum system identification and control. *NPJ Quantum Inf.* **10**, 9 (2024).
↑ Craig, D. L. et al. Bridging the reality gap in quantum devices with physics-aware machine learning. *Phys. Rev. X* **14**, 011001 (2024).
↑ ^207.0 ^207.1 Percebois, G. J. et al. Reconstructing the potential configuration in a high-mobility semiconductor heterostructure with scanning gate microscopy. *SciPost Phys.* **15**, 242 (2023).
↑ ^208.0 ^208.1 Jung, K. et al. Deep learning enhanced individual nuclear-spin detection. *NPJ Quantum Inf.* **7**, 41 (2021).
↑ ^209.0 ^209.1 Kulshrestha, A., Safro, I. & Alexeev, Y. Qarchsearch: A scalable quantum architecture search package. In *Proceedings of the SC'23 Workshops of The International Conference on High Performance Computing, Network, Storage, and Analysis*, 1487–1491 (2023).
↑ McClean, J. R., Boixo, S., Smelyanskiy, V. N., Babbush, R. & Neven, H. Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes. *Nat. Commun.* **9**, 4812 (2018).
↑ ^211.0 ^211.1 Allen-Zhu, Z., Li, Y. & Song, Z. A convergence theory for deep learning via over-parameterization. In *International conference on machine learning*, 242–252 (PMLR, 2019).
↑ ^212.0 ^212.1 ^212.2 ^212.3 ^212.4 ^212.5 Wang, S. et al. Noise-induced barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms. *Nat. Commun.* **12**, 6961 (2021).
↑ ^213.0 ^213.1 Anschuetz, E. R. & Kiani, B. T. Quantum variational algorithms are swamped with traps. *Nat. Commun.* **13**, 7760 (2022).
↑ Shende, V. V., Markov, I. L. & Bullock, S. S. Synthesis of quantum logic circuits. *IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst.* **25**, 1000–1010 (2006).
↑ ^215.0 ^215.1 Bukov, M. et al. Reinforcement learning in different phases of quantum control. *Phys. Rev. X* **8**, 031086 (2018).
↑ Kremer, D., Villar, V., Vishwakarma, S., Faro, I. & Cruz-Benito, J. AI methods for approximate compiling of unitaries. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.21225 (2024).
↑ ^217.0 ^217.1 Fürrutter, F., Muñoz-Gil, G. & Briegel, H. J. Quantum circuit synthesis with diffusion models. *Nat. Mach. Intell.* **6**, 515–524 (2024).
↑ Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P. & Brox, T. U-Net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In *Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2015*. (eds. Navab, N., Hornegger, J., Wells, W. M. & Frangi, A. F.) 234–241 (Springer, 2015).
↑ ^219.0 ^219.1 Fürrutter, F., Chandani, Z., Hamamura, I., Briegel, H. J. & Muñoz-Gil, G. Synthesis of discrete-continuous quantum circuits with multimodal diffusion models. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.01666 (2025).
↑ Ruiz, F. J. R. et al. Quantum circuit optimization with alphatensor. *Nat. Mach. Intell.* **7**, 374–385 (2025).
↑ ^221.0 ^221.1 Fōsel, T., Niu, M. Y., Marquardt, F. & Li, L. Quantum circuit optimization with deep reinforcement learning. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2103.07585 (2021).
↑ Quetschlich, N., Burgholzer, L. & Wille, R. Compiler Optimization for Quantum Computing Using Reinforcement Learning. In 2023 60th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC). 1–6 (IEEE, 2023).
↑ Li, Z. et al. QuarI: A Learning-Based Quantum Circuit Optimizer. *Proc. ACM Program. Lang.* **8**, 114 (2024).
↑ Preti, F. et al. Hybrid discrete-continuous compilation of trapped-ion quantum circuits with deep reinforcement learning. *Quantum* **8**, 1343 (2024).
↑ Kremer, D. et al. Practical and efficient quantum circuit synthesis and transpiling with reinforcement learning. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.13196 (2024).
↑ Peruzzo, A. et al. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. *Nat. Commun.* **5**, 4213 (2014).
↑ Nakaji et al. The generative quantum eigensolver (gqe) and its application for ground state search. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.09253 (2024).
↑ Minami, S., Nakaji, K., Suzuki, Y., Aspuru-Guzik, A. & Kadowaki, T. Generative quantum combinatorial optimization by means of a novel conditional generative quantum eigensolver. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.16986 (2025).
↑ ^229.0 ^229.1 ^229.2 Tyagin, I. et al. Qaoa-gpt: Efficient generation of adaptive and regular quantum approximate optimization algorithm circuits. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.16350 (2025).
↑ Bharti, K. et al. Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms. *Rev. Mod. Phys.* **94**, 015004 (2022).
↑ Falla, J., Langfitt, Q., Safro, I. & Alexeev, Y. Parameter transferability in qaoa under noisy conditions. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), 2, 300–301 (IEEE, 2023).
↑ Galda, A. et al. Similarity-based parameter transferability in the quantum approximate optimization algorithm. *Front. Quantum Sci. Technol.* **2**, 1200975 (2023).
↑ Sud, J., Hadfield, S., Rieffel, E., Tubman, N. & Hogg, T. Parameter-setting heuristic for the quantum alternating operator ansatz. *Phys. Rev. Res.* **6**, 023171 (2024).
↑ Narayanan, A. et al. graph2vec: Learning distributed representations of graphs. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1707.05005 (2017).
↑ Zhang, C., Jiang, L. & Chen, F. Qracle: A graph-neural-network-based parameter initializer for variational quantum eigensolvers. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.01236 (2025).
↑ Chen, H. & Koga, H. Gl2vec: Graph embedding enriched by line graphs with edge features. In *Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing*, 3–14 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019).
↑ Galda, A., Liu, X., Lykov, D., Alexeev, Y. & Safro, I. Transferability of optimal qaoa parameters between random graphs. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), 171–180 (IEEE, 2021).
↑ Larocca, M. et al. A review of barren plateaus in variational quantum computing. *Nat. Rev. Phys.* **7**, 174–189 (2024).
↑ Langfitt, Q., Falla, J., Safro, I. & Alexeev, Y. Parameter transferability in qaoa under noisy conditions. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), 2, 300–301 (IEEE, 2023).
↑ Verdon, G. et al. Learning to learn with quantum neural networks via classical neural networks. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1907.05415 (2019).
↑ Wilson, M. et al. Optimizing quantum heuristics with meta-learning. *Quantum Mach. Intell.* **3**, 1–14 (2021).
↑ Araujo, I. F., Park, D. K., Petruccione, F. & da Silva, A. J. A divide-and-conquer algorithm for quantum state preparation. *Sci. Rep.* **11**, 6329 (2021).
↑ Arrazola, J. M. et al. Machine learning method for state preparation and gate synthesis on photonic quantum computers. *Quantum Sci. Technol.* **4**, 024004 (2019).
↑ Cao, S. et al. Encoding optimization for quantum machine learning demonstrated on a superconducting transmon qutrit. *Quantum Sci. Technol.* **9**, 045037 (2024).
↑ Roca-Jerat, S., Román-Roche, J. & Zueco, D. Qudit machine learning. *Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol.* **5**, 015057 (2024).
↑ Sawaya, N. P. D. et al. HamLib: A library of Hamiltonians for benchmarking quantum algorithms and hardware. *Quantum* **8**, 1559 (2024).
↑ Baek, U. et al. Say no to optimization: A nonorthogonal quantum eigensolver. *PRX Quantum* **4**, 030307 (2023).
↑ ^248.0 ^248.1 ^248.2 Mullinax, J. W. & Tubman, N. M. Large-scale sparse wave function circuit simulator for applications with the variational quantum eigensolver. *J. Chem. Phys.* **162**, 074114 (2025).
↑ Khan, A., Clark, B. K. & Tubman, N. M. Pre-optimizing variational quantum eigensolvers with tensor networks. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.12965 (2023).
↑ Zhang, X.-M., Wei, Z., Asad, R., Yang, X.-C. & Wang, X. When does reinforcement learning stand out in quantum control? a comparative study on state preparation. *NPJ Quantum Inf.* **5**, 85 (2019).
↑ Liu, W., Xu, J. & Wang, B. A quantum states preparation method based on difference-driven reinforcement learning. *Spin* **13**, 2350013 (2023).
↑ Ostaszewski, M., Trenkwalder, L. M., Masarczyk, W., Scerri, E. & Dunjko, V. Reinforcement learning for optimization of variational quantum circuit architectures. In *Neural Information Processing Systems* (2021).
↑ Wang, Z. W. & Wang, Z. M. Arbitrary quantum states preparation aided by deep reinforcement learning. *Phys. Scr.* **100**, 045103 (2025).
↑ Haug, T. et al. Classifying global state preparation via deep reinforcement learning. *Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol.* **2**, 01LT02 (2020).
↑ Burton, H. G. A., Marti-Dafcik, D., Tew, D. P. & Wales, D. J. Exact electronic states with shallow quantum circuits from global optimisation. *npj Quantum Inf.* **9**, 75 (2023).
↑ Sunkel, L., Martyniuk, D., Mattern, D., Jung, J. & Paschke, A. Ga4qco: Genetic algorithm for quantum circuit optimization. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.01303 (2023).
↑ Chivilikhin, D. et al. Mog-vqe: Multiobjective genetic variational quantum eigensolver. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2007.04424 (2020).
↑ Sorourifar, F. et al. Toward efficient quantum computation of molecular ground-state energies. *AIChE J.* **e18887** (2025).
↑ Dutfield, S., Benedetti, M. & Rosenkranz, M. Bayesian learning of parameterised quantum circuits. *Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol.* **4**, 025007 (2023).
↑ Machnes, S. et al. Comparing, optimizing, and benchmarking quantum-control algorithms in a unifying programming framework. *Phys. Rev. A* **84**, 022305 (2011).
↑ Spörl, A. et al. Optimal control of coupled josephson qubits. *Phys. Rev. A* **75**, 012302 (2007).
↑ Heeres, R. W. et al. Implementing a universal gate set on a logical qubit encoded in an oscillator. *Nat. Commun.* **8**, 94 (2017).
↑ Khaneja, N., Reiss, T., Kehlet, C., Schulte-Herbrüggen, T. & Glaser, S. J. Optimal control of coupled spin dynamics: design of NMR pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms. *J. Magn. Reson.* **172**, 296–305 (2005).
↑ Sivak, V. V. et al. Model-free quantum control with reinforcement learning. *Phys. Rev. X* **12**, 011059 (2022).
↑ Ding, Y. et al. Breaking adiabatic quantum control with deep learning. *Phys. Rev. A* **103**, L040401 (2021).
↑ Nguyen, H. N. et al. Reinforcement learning pulses for transmon qubit entangling gates. *Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol.* **5**, 025066 (2024).
↑ Daraeizadeh, S. et al. Machine-learning-based three-qubit gate design for the toffoli gate and parity check in transmon systems. *Phys. Rev. A* **102**, 012601 (2020).
↑ Wright, E. & De Sousa, R. Fast quantum gate design with deep reinforcement learning using real-time feedback on readout signals. In *2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE)*, 2, 1295–1303 (IEEE, 2023).
↑ ^269.0 ^269.1 ^269.2 Sivak, V. V. et al. Real-time quantum error correction beyond break-even. *Nature* **616**, 50–55 (2023).
↑ ^270.0 ^270.1 ^270.2 Porotti, R., Essig, A., Huard, B. & Marquardt, F. Gradient-ascent pulse engineering with feedback. *PRX Quantum* **4**, 030305 (2023).
↑ Darulová, J. et al. Autotuning of double-dot devices in situ with machine learning. *Phys. Rev. Appl.* **13**, 054005 (2020).
↑ Kalantre, S. S. et al. Machine learning techniques for state recognition and auto-tuning in quantum dots. *NPJ Quantum Inf.* **5**, 6 (2019).
↑ Nguyen, V. et al. Deep reinforcement learning for efficient measurement of quantum devices. *NPJ Quantum Inf.* **7**, 100 (2021).
↑ van Esbroeck, N. M. et al. Automated long-range compensation of an rf quantum dot sensor. *Phys. Rev. Appl.* **22**, 064026 (2024).
↑ Durrer, R. et al. Automated tuning of double quantum dots into specific charge states using neural networks. *Phys. Rev. Appl.* **13**, 054019 (2020).
↑ Schuff, J. et al. Identifying pauli spin blockade using deep learning. *Quantum* **7**, 1077 (2023).
↑ Moon, H. et al. Machine learning enables completely automatic tuning of a quantum device faster than human experts. *Nat. Commun.* **11**, 4161 (2020).
↑ van Straaten, B. et al. All-rf-based coarse-tuning algorithm for quantum devices using machine learning. *Phys. Rev. Appl.* https://doi.org/10.1103/v1lm-dbhm (2025).
↑ Severin, B. *AI for Quantum Computing in Silicon*. Ph.D. thesis, Oxford University (2023).
↑ Hickie, J. et al. Automated long-range compensation of an rf quantum dot sensor. *Phys. Rev. Appl.* **22**, 064026 (2024).
↑ Rao, A. S. et al. Modular Autonomous Virtualization System for Two-Dimensional Semiconductor Quantum Dot Arrays. *Phys. Rev. X* **15**, 021034 (2025).
↑ Schuff, J. et al. Fully autonomous tuning of a spin qubit. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.03931 (2024).
↑ Carballido, M. J. et al. Compromise-free scaling of qubit speed and coherence. *Nat. Commun.* **16**, 7616 (2025).
↑ Wozniakowski, A., Thompson, J., Gu, M. & Binder, F. C. A new formulation of gradient boosting. *Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol.* **2**, 045022 (2021).
↑ Daraeizadeh, S., Premaratne, S. P. & Matsuura, A. Y. Designing high-fidelity multi-qubit gates for semiconductor quantum dots through deep reinforcement learning. In *2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE)*, 30–36 (IEEE, 2020).
↑ Berritta, F. et al. Real-time two-axis control of a spin qubit. *Nat. Commun.* **15**, 1676 (2024).
↑ ^287.0 ^287.1 ^287.2 Berritta, F. et al. Physics-informed tracking of qubit fluctuations. *Phys. Rev. Appl.* **22**, 014033 (2024).
↑ Scerri, E., Gauger, E. M. & Bonato, C. Extending qubit coherence by adaptive quantum environment learning. *N. J. Phys.* **22**, 035002 (2020).
↑ ^289.0 ^289.1 ^289.2 Arshad, M. J. et al. Real-time adaptive estimation of decoherence timescales for a single qubit. *Phys. Rev. Appl.* **21**, 024026 (2024).
↑ ^290.0 ^290.1 Koolstra, G. et al. Monitoring fast superconducting qubit dynamics using a neural network. *Phys. Rev. X* **12**, 031017 (2022).
↑ ^291.0 ^291.1 Flurin, E., Martin, L. S., Hacohen-Gourgy, S. & Siddiqi, I. Using a recurrent neural network to reconstruct quantum dynamics of a superconducting qubit from physical observations. *Phys. Rev. X* **10**, 011006 (2020).
↑ ^292.0 ^292.1 Porotti, R. et al. Deep reinforcement learning for quantum state preparation with weak nonlinear measurements. *Quantum* **6**, 747 (2022).
↑ ^293.0 ^293.1 Vora, N. R. et al. Ml-powered fpga-based real-time quantum state discrimination enabling mid-circuit measurements. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.18807 (2024).
↑ ^294.0 ^294.1 ^294.2 Metz, F. & Bukov, M. Self-correcting quantum many-body control using reinforcement learning with tensor networks. *Nat. Mach. Intell.* **5**, 780–791 (2023).
↑ ^295.0 ^295.1 ^295.2 Niu, M. Y., Boixo, S., Smelyanskiy, V. N. & Neven, H. Universal quantum control through deep reinforcement learning. *NPJ Quantum Inf.* **5**, 33 (2019).
↑ ^296.0 ^296.1 Reuer, K. et al. Realizing a deep reinforcement learning agent for real-time quantum feedback. *Nat. Commun.* **14**, 7138 (2023).
↑ ^297.0 ^297.1 Cimini, V. et al. Calibration of quantum sensors by neural networks. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **123**, 230502 (2019).
↑ ^298.0 ^298.1 ^298.2 Cimini, V. et al. Calibration of multiparameter sensors via machine learning at the single-photon level. *Phys. Rev. Appl.* **15**, 044003 (2021).
↑ ^299.0 ^299.1 ^299.2 Rahman, A., Egger, D. J. & Arenz, C. Learning how to dynamically decouple by optimizing rotational gates. *Phys. Rev. Appl.* **22**, 054074 (2024).
↑ ^300.0 ^300.1 ^300.2 Tong, C., Zhang, H. & Pokharel, B. Empirical learning of dynamical decoupling on quantum processors. *PRX Quantum* **6**, 030319 (2025).
↑ Huang, J. Y. et al. High-fidelity spin qubit operation and algorithmic initialization above 1 K. *Nature* **627**, 772–777 (2024).
↑ Sarma, B., Borah, S., Kani, A. & Twamley, J. Accelerated motional cooling with deep reinforcement learning. *Phys. Rev. Res.* **4**, L042038 (2022).
↑ Porotti, R., Tamascelli, D., Restelli, M. & Prati, E. Coherent transport of quantum states by deep reinforcement learning. *Commun. Phys.* **2**, 61 (2019).
↑ Boiko, D. A., MacKnight, R., Kline, B. & Gomes, G. Autonomous chemical research with large language models. *Nature* **624**, 570–578 (2023).
↑ Zou, Y. et al. El Agente: An autonomous agent for quantum chemistry. *Matter* **8**, 102263 (2025).
↑ M. Bran, A. et al. Augmenting large language models with chemistry tools. *Nat. Mach. Intell.* **6**, 525–535 (2024).
↑ ^307.0 ^307.1 ^307.2 Cao, S. et al. Automating quantum computing laboratory experiments with an agent-based AI framework. *Patterns* **6**, 101372 (2025).
↑ ^308.0 ^308.1 Silver, D. et al. A general reinforcement learning algorithm that masters chess, shogi, and Go through self-play. *Science* **362**, 1140–1144 (2018).
↑ ^309.0 ^309.1 Fawzi, A. et al. Discovering faster matrix multiplication algorithms with reinforcement learning. *Nature* **610**, 47–53 (2022).
↑ ^310.0 ^310.1 ^310.2 Chamberland, C., Goncalves, L., Sivarajah, P., Peterson, E. & Grimberg, S. Techniques for combining fast local decoders with global decoders under circuit-level noise. *Quantum Sci. Technol.* **8**, 045011 (2023).
↑ ^311.0 ^311.1 ^311.2 Skoric, L., Browne, D. E., Barnes, K. M., Gillespie, N. I. & Campbell, E. T. Parallel window decoding enables scalable fault tolerant quantum computation. *Nat. Commun.* **14**, 7040 (2023).
↑ ^312.0 ^312.1 ^312.2 Tan, X., Zhang, F., Chao, R., Shi, Y. & Chen, J. Scalable surface-code decoders with parallelization in time. *PRX Quantum* **4**, 040344 (2023).
↑ ^313.0 ^313.1 Battistel, F. et al. Real-time decoding for fault-tolerant quantum computing: Progress, challenges and outlook. *Nano Futures* **7**, 032003 (2023).
↑ ^314.0 ^314.1 Kurman, Y. et al. Benchmarking the Ability of a Controller to Execute Quantum Error Corrected Non-Clifford Circuits. *IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng.* **6**, 1–14 (2025).
↑ ^315.0 ^315.1 Litinski, D. A game of surface codes: Large-scale quantum computing with lattice surgery. *Quantum* **3**, 128 (2019).
↑ ^316.0 ^316.1 Chamberland, C. & Campbell, E. T. Universal quantum computing with twist-free and temporally encoded lattice surgery. *PRX Quantum* **3**, 010331 (2022).
↑ ^317.0 ^317.1 Torlai, G. & Melko, R. G. Neural decoder for topological codes. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **119**, 030501 (2017).
↑ Chamberland, C. & Ronagh, P. Deep neural decoders for near term fault-tolerant experiments. *Quantum Sci. Technol.* **3**, 044002 (2018).
↑ Wagner, T., Kampermann, H. & Bruß, D. Symmetries for a high-level neural decoder on the toric code. *Phys. Rev. A* **102**, 042411 (2020).
↑ Baireuther, P., O'Brien, T. E., Tarasinski, B. & Beenakker, C. W. Machine-learning-assisted correction of correlated qubit errors in a topological code. *Quantum* **2**, 48 (2018).
↑ Sweke, R., Kesselring, M. S., van Nieuwenburg, E. P. & Eisert, J. Reinforcement learning decoders for fault-tolerant quantum computation. *Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol.* **2**, 025005 (2020).
↑ Andreasson, P., Johansson, J., Liljestrand, S. & Granath, M. Quantum error correction for the toric code using deep reinforcement learning. *Quantum* **3**, 183 (2019).
↑ Breuckmann, N. P. & Ni, X. Scalable neural network decoders for higher dimensional quantum codes. *Quantum* **2**, 68 (2018).
↑ Ueno, Y., Kondo, M., Tanaka, M., Suzuki, Y. & Tabuchi, Y. Neo-qec: Neural network enhanced online superconducting decoder for surface codes. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2208.05758 (2022).
↑ Wang, H. et al. Transformer-qec: Quantum error correction code decoding with transferable transformers. In *2023 International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD), Fast Machine Learning for Science Workshop* (2023).
↑ Lange, M. et al. Data-driven decoding of quantum error correcting codes using graph neural networks. *Phys. Rev. Res.* **7**, 023181 (2025).
↑ Maan, A. S. & Paler, A. Machine learning message-passing for the scalable decoding of QLDPC codes. *npj Quantum Inf.* **11**, 78 (2025).
↑ Wang, H. et al. Dgr: Tackling drifted and correlated noise in quantum error correction via decoding graph re-weighting. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.16214 (2023).
↑ Davaasuren, A., Suzuki, Y., Fujii, K. & Koashi, M. General framework for constructing fast and near-optimal machine-learning-based decoder of the topological stabilizer codes. *Phys. Rev. Res.* **2**, 033399 (2020).
↑ Gicev, S., Hollenberg, L. C. L. & Usman, M. A scalable and fast artificial neural network syndrome decoder for surface codes. *Quantum* **7**, 1058 (2023).
↑ Hall, B., Gicev, S. & Usman, M. Artificial neural network syndrome decoding on ibm quantum processors. *Phys. Rev. Res.* **6**, L032004 (2024).
↑ Blue, J., Avlani, H., He, Z., Ziyin, L. & Chuang, I. L. Machine learning decoding of circuit-level noise for bivariate bicycle codes. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.13043 (2025).
↑ Rodriguez, P. S. et al. Experimental demonstration of logical magic state distillation. *Nature* **645**, 620–625 (2025).
↑ Olle, J. et al. Simultaneous discovery of quantum error correction codes and encoders with a noise-aware reinforcement learning agent. *npj Quantum Inf.* **10**, 126 (2024).
↑ Mauron, C., Farrelly, T. & Stace, T. M. Optimization of tensor network codes with reinforcement learning. *N. J. Phys.* **26**, 023024 (2024).
↑ Su, V. P. et al. Discovery of optimal quantum codes via reinforcement learning. *Phys. Rev. Appl.* **23**, 034048 (2025).
↑ Cao, C. & Lackey, B. Quantum lego: building quantum error correction codes from tensor networks. *PRX Quantum* **3**, 020332 (2022).
↑ Delfosse, N. & Nickerson, N. H. Almost-linear time decoding algorithm for topological codes. *Quantum* **5**, 595 (2021).
↑ ^339.0 ^339.1 ^339.2 Gidney, C. How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers with less than a million noisy qubits. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.15917 (2025).
↑ ^340.0 ^340.1 ^340.2 ^340.3 ^340.4 Magesan, E., Gambetta, J. M., Córcoles, A. D. & Chow, J. M. Machine learning for discriminating quantum measurement trajectories and improving readout. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **114**, 200501 (2015).
↑ Martinez, L. A., Rosen, Y. J. & DuBois, J. L. Improving qubit readout with hidden markov models. *Phys. Rev. A* **102**, 062426 (2020).
↑ Lienhard, B. et al. Deep-neural-network discrimination of multiplexed superconducting-qubit states. *Phys. Rev. Appl.* **17**, 014024 (2022).
↑ Quek, Y., Fort, S. & Ng, H. K. Adaptive quantum state tomography with neural networks. *NPJ Quantum Inf.* **7**, 105 (2021).
↑ ^344.0 ^344.1 ^344.2 ^344.3 Cao, S. et al. Efficient characterization of qudit logical gates with gate set tomography using an error-free virtual z gate model. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **133**, 120802 (2024).
↑ Blume-Kohout, R. et al. A taxonomy of small markovian errors. *PRX Quantum* **3**, 020335 (2022).
↑ Brieger, R., Roth, I. & Kliesch, M. Compressive gate set tomography. *PRX Quantum* **4**, 010325 (2023).
↑ Yu, K. Y., Sarkar, A., Rimbach-Russ, M., Ishihara, R. & Feld, S. Transformer models for quantum gate set tomography. *Quantum Mach. Intell.* **7**, 10 (2025).
↑ Zimborás, Z. et al. Myths around quantum computation before full fault tolerance: What no-go theorems rule out and what they don't. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.05694 (2025).
↑ ^349.0 ^349.1 ^349.2 Aharonov, D. et al. On the importance of error mitigation for quantum computation. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.17243 (2025).
↑ Bonet-Monroig, X., Sagastizabal, R., Singh, M. & O'Brien, T. E. Low-cost error mitigation by symmetry verification. *Phys. Rev. A* **98**, 062339 (2018).
↑ McArdle, S., Yuan, X. & Benjamin, S. Error-mitigated digital quantum simulation. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **122**, 180501 (2019).
↑ Huggins, W. J. et al. Virtual distillation for quantum error mitigation. *Phys. Rev. X* **11**, 041036 (2021).
↑ Koczor, B. Exponential error suppression for near-term quantum devices. *Phys. Rev. X* **11**, 031057 (2021).
↑ Liu, Z., Zhang, X., Fei, Y.-Y. & Cai, Z. Virtual Channel Purification. *PRX Quantum* **6**, 020325 (2025).
↑ Li, Y. & Benjamin, S. C. Efficient variational quantum simulator incorporating active error minimization. *Phys. Rev. X* **7**, 021050 (2017).
↑ Temme, K., Bravyi, S. & Gambetta, J. M. Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **119**, 180509 (2017).
↑ McClean, J. R., Kimchi-Schwartz, M. E., Carter, J. & de Jong, W. A. Hybrid quantum-classical hierarchy for mitigation of decoherence and determination of excited states. *Phys. Rev. A* **95**, 042308 (2017).
↑ Strikis, A., Qin, D., Chen, Y., Benjamin, S. C. & Li, Y. Learning-based quantum error mitigation. *PRX Quantum* **2**, 040330 (2021).
↑ Czarnik, P., Arrasmith, A., Coles, P. J. & Cincio, L. Error mitigation with Clifford quantum-circuit data. *Quantum* **5**, 592 (2021).
↑ Kim, C., Park, K. D. & Rhee, J.-K. Quantum error mitigation with artificial neural network. *IEEE Access* **8**, 188853-188860 (2020).
↑ Gulania, S. et al. Quantum Time Dynamics Mediated by the Yang-Baxter Equation and Artificial Neural Networks. *J. Chem. Theory Comput.* **21**, 6280-6291 (2025).
↑ Liao, H. et al. Machine learning for practical quantum error mitigation. *Nat. Mach. Intell.* **6**, 1478-1486 (2024).
↑ Bennewitz, F. R., Hopfmueller, F., Kulchytskyy, B., Carrasquilla, J. & Ronagh, P. Neural error mitigation of near-term quantum simulations. *Nat. Mach. Intell.* **4**, 618-624 (2022).
↑ Cai, Z. et al. Quantum error mitigation. *Rev. Mod. Phys.* **95**, 045005 (2023).
↑ U.S. Department of Energy. National quantum information science research centers. https://nqisrc.org (2024).
↑ EuroHPC Joint Undertaking. European high performance computing joint undertaking. https://eurohpc-ju.europa.eu/index_en (2024).
↑ ^367.0 ^367.1 ^367.2 ^367.3 ^367.4 ^367.5 The CUDA-Q development team. CUDA-Q (2024).
↑ Beck, T. et al. Integrating quantum computing resources into scientific hpc ecosystems. *Future Gener. Comput. Syst.* **161**, 112212 (2024).
↑ Kim, J.-S. Leverage ai coding assistants to develop quantum applications at scale with nvidia cuda-q. https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/leverage-ai-coding-assistants-to-develop-quantum-applications-at-scale-with-nvidia-cuda-q/ (2024).
↑ Learn quantum computing with azure quantum. https://quantum.microsoft.com/en-us/tools/quantum-coding (2024).
↑ Kharkov, Y., Mohammad, Z., Beach, M. & Kessler, E. Accelerate quantum software development on Amazon Braket with Claude-3. https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/quantum-computing/accelerate-quantum-software-development-on-amazon-braket-with-claude-3/ (2024).
↑ Placidi, L. et al. Mnisq: A large-scale quantum circuit dataset for machine learning on/for quantum computers in the nisq era. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.16627 (2023).
↑ Zwolak, J. P. et al. Data needs and challenges for quantum dot devices automation. *NPJ Quantum Inf.* **10**, 105 (2024).
↑ Vishwakarma, S. et al. Qiskit HumanEval: An Evaluation Benchmark for Quantum Code Generative Models. In *2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE)*. 1169-1176 (IEEE, 2024).
↑ Koopman, B. O. Hamiltonian systems and transformation in hilbert space. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA* **17**, 315-318 (1931).
↑ Benioff, P. The computer as a physical system: A microscopic quantum mechanical Hamiltonian model of computers as represented by Turing machines. *J. Stat. Phys.* **22**, 563-591 (1980).
↑ Benioff, P. Quantum mechanical hamiltonian models of turing machines. *J. Stat. Phys.* **29**, 515-546 (1982).
↑ Feynman, R. P. Simulating physics with computers. *Int. J. Theor. Phys.* **21**, 467-488 (1982).
↑ Breuer, H. & Petruccione, F. *The Theory of Open Quantum Systems* (Oxford University Press, 2002).
↑ Vidal, G. Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **91**, 147902 (2003).
↑ Gottesman, D. The heisenberg representation of quantum computers. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quantum-ph/9807006 (1998).
↑ Aaronson, S. & Gottesman, D. Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits. *Phys. Rev.* **70**, 052328 (2004).
↑ Bravyi, S. & Gosset, D. Improved classical simulation of quantum circuits dominated by clifford gates. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **116**, 250501 (2016).
↑ Aharonov, D., Gao, X., Landau, Z., Liu, Y. & Vazirani, U. A polynomial-time classical algorithm for noisy random circuit sampling. In *Proceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing*, STOC '23 (ACM, 2023).
↑ González-García, G., Cirac, J. I. & Trivedi, R. Pauli path simulations of noisy quantum circuits beyond average case. *Quantum* **9**, 1730 (2025).
↑ van Straaten, B. et al. QArray: A GPU-accelerated constant capacitance model simulator for large quantum dot arrays. *SciPost Phys. Codebases* 35 (2024).
↑ van Straaten, B. et al. Codebase release 1.3 for QArray. https://scipost.org/SciPostPhysCodeb.35-r1.3 (2024).
↑ Bayraktar, H. et al. cuquantum sdk: A high-performance library for accelerating quantum science. In *2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE)*, **01**, 1050-1061 (2023).
↑ Carrasquilla, J. & Melko, R. G. Machine learning phases of matter. *Nat. Phys.* **13**, 431-434 (2017).
↑ Carleo, G. & Troyer, M. Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks. *Science* **355**, 602-606 (2017).
↑ Lange, H., Van de Walle, A., Abedinnia, A. & Bohrdt, A. From architectures to applications: A review of neural quantum states. *Quantum Sci. Technol.* **9**, 040501 (2024).
↑ Yang, T.-H., Soleimanifar, M., Bergamaschi, T. & Preskill, J. When can classical neural networks represent quantum states? Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.23152 (2024).
↑ Bukov, M., Schmitt, M. & Dupont, M. Learning the ground state of a non-stoquastic quantum hamiltonian in a rugged neural network landscape. *SciPost Phys.* **10**, 147 (2021).
↑ Han, C.-D., Glaz, B., Haile, M. & Lai, Y.-C. Tomography of time-dependent quantum hamiltonians with machine learning. *Phys. Rev. A* **104**, 062404 (2021).
↑ Mohseni, N., Fösel, T., Guo, L., Navarrete-Benlloch, C. & Marquardt, F. Deep learning of quantum many-body dynamics via random driving. *Quantum* **6**, 714 (2022).
↑ Shah, F. et al. Fourier neural operators for learning dynamics in quantum spin systems. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.03302 (2024).
↑ Craig, D. L., Ares, N. & Gauger, E. M. Differentiable master equation solver for quantum device characterisation. *Phys. Rev. Res.* **6**, 043175 (2024).
↑ Silver, D. et al. A general reinforcement learning algorithm that masters chess, shogi, and Go through self-play. *Science* **362**, 1140–1144 (2018).
↑ ^399.0 ^399.1 ^399.2 Fawzi, A. et al. Discovering faster matrix multiplication algorithms with reinforcement learning. *Nature* **610**, 47–53 (2022).
↑ ^400.0 ^400.1 ^400.2 Bengio, E., Jain, M., Korablyov, M., Precup, D. & Bengio, Y. Flow network based generative models for non-iterative diverse candidate generation. *Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst.* **34**, 27381–27394 (2021).
↑ ^401.0 ^401.1 ^401.2 Xiao, Y., Nazarian, S. & Bogdan, P. A stochastic quantum program synthesis framework based on bayesian optimization. *Sci. Rep.* **11**, 13138 (2021).
↑ ^402.0 ^402.1 ^402.2 Zhu, Y. & Yu, K. Artificial intelligence (ai) for quantum and quantum for ai. *Opt. Quantum Electron.* **55**, 697 (2023).
↑ ^403.0 ^403.1 ^403.2 Bang, J., Ryu, J., Yoo, S., Pawłowski, M. & Lee, J. A strategy for quantum algorithm design assisted by machine learning. *N. J. Phys.* **16**, 073017 (2014).
↑ ^404.0 ^404.1 ^404.2 Grimsley, H. R., Economou, S. E., Barnes, E. & Mayhall, N. J. An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer. *Nat. Commun.* **10**, 3007 (2019).
↑ ^405.0 ^405.1 ^405.2 Teske, J. D. et al. A machine learning approach for automated fine-tuning of semiconductor spin qubits. *Appl. Phys. Lett.* **114**, 133102 (2019).
↑ ^406.0 ^406.1 ^406.2 ^406.3 ^406.4 O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox. U-Net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2015, pages 234–241. Springer, 2015. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24574-4_28
↑ ^407.0 ^407.1 ^407.2 F. Fürrutter, G. Muñoz-Gil, and H. J. Briegel. Quantum circuit synthesis with diffusion models. Nat. Mach. Intell., 6:515–524, 2024. doi:10.1038/s42256-024-00823-3
↑ D. Silver et al. Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature, 529:484–489, 2016. doi:10.1038/nature16961
↑ ^409.0 ^409.1 ^409.2 A. Fawzi et al. Discovering faster matrix multiplication algorithms with reinforcement learning. Nature, 610:47–53, 2022. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05172-4
↑ ^410.0 ^410.1 ^410.2 ^410.3 E. Bengio et al. Flow network based generative models for non-iterative diverse candidate generation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021. (No published DOI).
↑ ^411.0 ^411.1 ^411.2 ^411.3 F. Fürrutter, Z. Chandani, I. Hamamura, H. J. Briegel, and G. Muñoz-Gil. Synthesis of discrete-continuous quantum circuits with multimodal diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.01666, 2025. (No published DOI).
↑ ^412.0 ^412.1 ^412.2 ^412.3 T. Vidal, F. Roser, and M. Lewis. Quantum optimization for finance and logistics: benchmarking real-world feasibility. npj Quantum Inf., 11(27), 2025. doi:10.1038/s41534-025-00790-4
↑ Artificial intelligence for quantum computing. Nature Communications, 2025. URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65836-3.
↑ AI in Quantum Computing: Why NVIDIA-lead Researchers Say It's Key. The Quantum Insider, Dec 2025. URL https://thequantuminsider.com/2025/12/03/ai-is-emerging-as-quantum-computings-missing-ingredient-nvidia-led-research-team-asserts/.
↑ Quantum Computing Industry Trends 2025: A Year of Breakthrough Milestones and Commercial Transition. SpinQ, Oct 2025. URL https://www.spinquanta.com/news-detail/quantum-computing-industry-trends-2025-breakthrough-milestones-commercial-transition.
↑ ^416.0 ^416.1 ^416.2 T. Hey. Richard Feynman and computation. Contemporary Physics, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 257–265, 1999. doi:10.1080/001075199181549
↑ ^417.0 ^417.1 ^417.2 J. Preskill. Quantum computing 40 years later. In Feynman Lectures on Computation, pp. 193–244, CRC Press, 2023. ISBN 9781003410027. doi:10.1201/9781003410027
↑ ^418.0 ^418.1 V. Silva. Richard Feynman, demigod of physics, father of the quantum computer. In Quantum Computing by Practice: Python Programming in the Cloud with Qiskit and IBM-Q, pp. 49–85, Springer, 2023. doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-9991-3_3
↑ ^419.0 ^419.1 ^419.2 Z. Yang, M. Zolanvari, and R. Jain. A survey of important issues in quantum computing and communications. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 2023. doi:10.1109/COMST.2023.3252240
↑ ^420.0 ^420.1 M. Mikkelsen, J. Berezovsky, N. Stoltz, L. Coldren, and D. Awschalom. Optically detected coherent spin dynamics of a single electron in a quantum dot. Nature Physics, vol. 3, no. 11, pp. 770–773, 2007. doi:10.1038/nphys722
↑ ^421.0 ^421.1 ^421.2 S. S. Gill, H. Wu, P. Patros, C. Ottaviani, P. Arora, V. C. Pujol, D. Haunschild, A. K. Parlikad, O. Cetinkaya, H. Lutfiyya, et al. Modern computing: Vision and challenges. Telematics and Informatics Reports, vol. 13, pp. 1–38, 2024. doi:10.1016/j.teler.2023.100116
↑ M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang. Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press, 2010. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511976667
↑ S. Nadj-Perge, S. Frolov, E. Bakkers, and L. P. Kouwenhoven. Spin–orbit qubit in a semiconductor nanowire. Nature, vol. 468, no. 7327, pp. 1084–1087, 2010. doi:10.1038/nature09682
↑ N. Hendrickx, W. Lawrie, L. Petit, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and M. Veldhorst. A single-hole spin qubit. Nature communications, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 3478, 2020. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17211-7
↑ A. Vourdas. Quantum systems with finite Hilbert space. Reports on Progress in Physics, vol. 67, no. 3, p. 267, 2004. doi:10.1088/0034-4885/67/3/R02
↑ ^426.0 ^426.1 ^426.2 A. Kumar et al. Securing the future internet of things with post-quantum cryptography. Security and Privacy, vol. 5, no. 2, p. e200, 2022. doi:10.1002/spy2.200
↑ ^427.0 ^427.1 J. Preskill. Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond. Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018. doi:10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79
↑ J. Howard, A. Lidiak, C. Jameson, B. Basyildiz, K. Clark, T. Zhao, M. Bal, J. Long, D. P. Pappas, M. Singh, et al. Implementing two-qubit gates at the quantum speed limit. Physical Review Research, vol. 5, no. 4, p. 043194, 2023. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.043194
↑ M. AbuGhanem and H. Eleuch. Two-qubit entangling gates for superconducting quantum computers. Results in Physics, vol. 56, p. 107236, 2024. doi:10.1016/j.rinp.2024.107236
↑ ^430.0 ^430.1 F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. Brandao, D. A. Buell, et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature, vol. 574, no. 7779, pp. 505–510, 2019. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5
↑ ^431.0 ^431.1 A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’brien. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nature communications, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 4213, 2014. doi:10.1038/ncomms5213
↑ ^432.0 ^432.1 A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta. Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets. nature, vol. 549, no. 7671, pp. 242–246, 2017. doi:10.1038/nature23879
↑ M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, et al. Variational quantum algorithms. Nature Reviews Physics, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 625–644, 2021. doi:10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9
↑ M. Singh et al. Quantum artificial intelligence for the science of climate change. In Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Blockchain in Quantum Satellite, Drone and Network, pp. 199–207, CRC Press, 2022. doi:10.1201/9781003201069-10
↑ A. D. Córcoles, A. Kandala, A. Javadi-Abhari, D. T. McClure, A. W. Cross, K. Temme, P. D. Nation, M. Steffen, and J. M. Gambetta. Challenges and opportunities of near-term quantum computing systems. Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 108, no. 8, pp. 1338–1352, 2019. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2019.2954005
↑ M. Krenn, J. Landgraf, T. Foesel, and F. Marquardt. Artificial intelligence and machine learning for quantum technologies. Physical Review A, vol. 107, no. 1, p. 010101, 2023. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.107.010101
↑ ^437.0 ^437.1 ^437.2 J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd. Quantum machine learning. Nature, vol. 549, no. 7671, pp. 195–202, 2017. doi:10.1038/nature23474
↑ M. Mafu and M. Senekane. Design and implementation of efficient quantum support vector machine. In 2021 International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Energy Technologies (ICECET), pp. 1–4, IEEE, 2021. doi:10.1109/ICECET52533.2021.9698571
↑ P. Rebentrost, M. Mohseni, and S. Lloyd. Quantum support vector machine for big data classification. Physical review letters, vol. 113, no. 13, p. 130503, 2014. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.130503
↑ C. Ding, T.-Y. Bao, and H.-L. Huang. Quantum-inspired support vector machine. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 7210–7222, 2021. doi:10.1109/TNNLS.2021.3085004
↑ D. Browne and H. Briegel. One-way quantum computation. Quantum information: From foundations to quantum technology applications, pp. 449–473, 2016. doi:10.1002/9783527805785.ch21
↑ T. Albash and D. A. Lidar. Adiabatic quantum computation. Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 90, no. 1, p. 015002, 2018. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.90.015002
↑ A. Cross. The ibm q experience and qiskit open-source quantum computing software. In APS March meeting abstracts, vol. 2018, pp. L58–003, 2018. No DOI (abstract).
↑ B. Heim, M. Soeken, S. Marshall, C. Granade, M. Roetteler, A. Geller, M. Troyer, and K. Svore. Quantum programming languages. Nature Reviews Physics, vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 709–722, 2020. doi:10.1038/s42254-020-00255-7
↑ V. Bergholm, J. Izaac, M. Schuld, C. Gogolin, S. Ahmed, V. Ajith, M. S. Alam, G. Alonso-Linaje, B. AkashNarayanan, A. Asadi, et al. Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.04968, 2018. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1811.04968
↑ S. S. Gill. Quantum and blockchain based serverless edge computing: A vision, model, new trends and future directions. Internet Technology Letters, p. e275, 2021. doi:10.1002/itl2.275
↑ ^447.0 ^447.1 D. R. Simon. On the power of quantum computation. SIAM journal on computing, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1474–1483, 1997. doi:10.1137/S0097539796298637
↑ ^448.0 ^448.1 ^448.2 E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1411.4028
↑ ^449.0 ^449.1 C. P. Williams. Quantum Gates. pp. 51–122. London: Springer London, 2011. doi:10.1007/978-1-84882-775-2_4
↑ ^450.0 ^450.1 W. Du, B. Li, and Y. Tian. Quantum annealing algorithms: State of the art. Jisuanji Yanjiu yu Fazhan/Computer Research and Development, vol. 45, no. 9, p. 1501 – 1508, 2008. No DOI.
↑ M. De Stefano, F. Pecorelli, D. Di Nucci, F. Palomba, and A. De Lucia. Software engineering for quantum programming: How far are we?. Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 190, p. 111326, 2022. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2022.111326
↑ M. A. Serrano, J. A. Cruz-Lemus, R. Perez-Castillo, and M. Piattini. Quantum software components and platforms: Overview and quality assessment. ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 1–31, 2022. doi:10.1145/3558814
↑ R. Pérez-Castillo, M. A. Serrano, and M. Piattini. Software modernization to embrace quantum technology. Advances in Engineering Software, vol. 151, p. 102933, 2021. doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2020.102933
↑ D. Vietz, J. Barzen, F. Leymann, and K. Wild. On decision support for quantum application developers: categorization, comparison, and analysis of existing technologies. In International Conference on Computational Science, pp. 127–141, Springer, 2021. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-77964-1_10
↑ M. Aramon, G. Rosenberg, E. Valiante, T. Miyazawa, H. Tamura, and H. G. Katzgraber. Physics-inspired optimization for quadratic unconstrained problems using a digital annealer. Frontiers in Physics, vol. 7, no. APR, 2019. doi:10.3389/fphy.2019.00048
↑ A. Singh, K. Dev, H. Siljak, H. D. Joshi, and M. Magarini. Quantum internet—applications, functionalities, enabling technologies, challenges, and research directions. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 2218–2247, 2021. doi:10.1109/COMST.2021.3114075
↑ ^457.0 ^457.1 P. W. Shor. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM review, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 303–332, 1999. doi:10.1137/S0036144598347011
↑ S. Pirandola, L. Andersen, U., L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ottaviani, J. L. Pereira, M. Razavi, J. Shamsul Shaari, M. Tomamichel, V. C. Usenko, G. Vallone, P. Villoresi, and W. P. Advances in quantum cryptography. Advances in Optics and Photonics, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1012–1236, 2020. doi:10.1364/AOP.361502
↑ S. Pirandola and S. L. Braunstein. Physics: Unite to build a quantum internet. Nature, vol. 532, no. 7598, pp. 169–171, 2016. doi:10.1038/532169a
↑ G. Zhang, J. Y. Haw, H. Cai, F. Xu, S. Assad, J. F. Fitzsimons, X. Zhou, Y. Zhang, S. Yu, J. Wu, et al. An integrated silicon photonic chip platform for continuous-variable quantum key distribution. Nature Photonics, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 839–842, 2019. doi:10.1038/s41566-019-0504-5
↑ T. Matsuura, K. Maeda, T. Sasaki, and M. Koashi. Finite-size security of continuous-variable quantum key distribution with digital signal processing. Nature communications, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 252, 2021. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19916-2
↑ P. James. The concept of transition in quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 23–33, 1970. doi:10.1007/BF00708652
↑ W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek. A single quantum cannot be cloned. Nature, vol. 299, no. 5886, p. 802–803, 1982. doi:10.1038/299802a0
↑ C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard. Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing, vol. 175, p. 8, 1984. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-374514-9.00010-4 (for book version; original conference no DOI).
↑ C. H. Bennett. Quantum cryptography using any two nonorthogonal states. Physical review letters, vol. 68, pp. 3121–3124, May 1992. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.3121
↑ C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, and N. D. Mermin. Quantum cryptography without bell’s theorem. Physical review letters, vol. 68, pp. 557–559, Feb 1992. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.557
↑ F. Grosshans and P. Grangier. Continuous variable quantum cryptography using coherent states. Physical review letters, vol. 88, p. 057902, Jan 2002. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.057902
↑ S. Pirandola, S. Mancini, S. Lloyd, and S. L. Braunstein. Continuous-variable quantum cryptography using two-way quantum communication. Nature Physics, vol. 4, pp. 726–730, 9 2006. doi:10.1038/nphys1018
↑ C. Ottaviani and S. Pirandola. General immunity and superadditivity of two-way gaussian quantum cryptography. Scientific Reports, vol. 6, p. 22225, 2016. doi:10.1038/srep22225
↑ A. K. Ekert. Quantum cryptography based on bell’s theorem. Physical review letters, vol. 67, pp. 661–663, 1991. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.661
↑ W. Zhang, T. van Leent, K. Redeker, R. Garthoff, R. Schwonnek, F. Fertig, S. Eppelt, W. Rosenfeld, V. Scarani, C. C.-W. Lim, et al. A device-independent quantum key distribution system for distant users. Nature, vol. 607, no. 7920, pp. 687–691, 2022. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04891-y
↑ V. Zapatero, T. van Leent, R. Arnon-Friedman, W.-Z. Liu, Q. Zhang, H. Weinfurter, and M. Curty. Advances in device-independent quantum key distribution. npj quantum information, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 10, 2023. doi:10.1038/s41534-023-00684-w
↑ S. L. Braunstein and S. Pirandola. Side-channel-free quantum key distribution. Physical review letters, vol. 108, p. 130502, 2012. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.130502
↑ H.-K. Lo, M. Curty, and B. Qi. Measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution. Physical review letters, vol. 108, p. 130503, 2012. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.130503
↑ S. Pirandola, C. Ottaviani, G. Spedalieri, C. Weedbrook, S. L. Braunstein, S. Lloyd, T. Gehring, C. S. Jacobsen, and U. L. Andersen. High-rate quantum cryptography in untrusted networks. Nature Photonics, vol. 9, p. 397–402, 2015. doi:10.1038/nphoton.2015.83
↑ M. Lucamarini, Z. L. Yuan, J. F. Dynes, and A. J. Shields. Overcoming the rate-distance limit of quantum key distribution without quantum repeaters. Nature, vol. 557, pp. 400–403, 2018. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0066-6
↑ S. Pirandola, R. Laurenza, C. Ottaviani, and L. Banchi. Fundamental limits of repeaterless quantum communications. Nature communications, vol. 8, p. 15043, 2017. doi:10.1038/ncomms15043
↑ S. Pirandola. End-to-end capacities of a quantum communication network. Communications Physics, vol. 2, p. 51, 2019. doi:10.1038/s42005-019-0146-1
↑ D. J. Bernstein and T. Lange. Post-quantum cryptography. Nature, vol. 549, no. 7671, pp. 188–194, 2017. doi:10.1038/nature23461
↑ NIST. Nist post-quantum cryprography standardisation. 2024. URL https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/post-quantum-cryptography/round-4-submissions. (No DOI, website).
↑ M. D. Reed, L. DiCarlo, S. E. Nigg, L. Sun, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf. Realization of three-qubit quantum error correction with superconducting circuits. Nature, vol. 482, no. 7385, pp. 382–385, 2012. doi:10.1038/nature10786
↑ E. Pednault, J. A. Gunnels, G. Nannicini, L. Horesh, and R. Wisnieff. Leveraging secondary storage to simulate deep 54-qubit sycamore circuits. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.09534, 2019. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1910.09534
↑ N. P. De Leon, K. M. Itoh, D. Kim, K. K. Mehta, T. E. Northup, H. Paik, B. Palmer, N. Samarth, S. Sangtawesin, and D. W. Steuerman. Materials challenges and opportunities for quantum computing hardware. Science, vol. 372, no. 6539, p. eabb2823, 2021. doi:10.1126/science.abb2823
↑ A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller. Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation. Nature, vol. 607, no. 7920, pp. 667–676, 2022. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04940-7
↑ S. Biswas and P. Das. Analysis of quantum cryptology and the RSA algorithms defense against attacks using shor’s algorithm in a post quantum environment. In International Conference on Computational Intelligence in Communications and Business Analytics, pp. 72–87, Springer, 2023. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-48676-0_6
↑ ^486.0 ^486.1 L. K. Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pp. 212–219, 1996. doi:10.1145/237814.237866
↑ S. S. Gill, A. Kumar, H. Singh, M. Singh, K. Kaur, M. Usman, and R. Buyya. Quantum computing: A taxonomy, systematic review and future directions. Software: Practice and Experience, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 66–114, 2022. doi:10.1002/spe.3030
↑ M. Sisodia. Comparison the performance of five-qubit IBM quantum computers in terms of bell states preparation. Quantum Information Processing, vol. 19, no. 8, p. 215, 2020. doi:10.1007/s11128-020-02703-2
↑ M. Piattini, M. Serrano, R. Perez-Castillo, G. Petersen, and J. L. Hevia. Toward a quantum software engineering. IT Professional, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 62–66, 2021. doi:10.1109/MITP.2020.3019522
↑ A. Kumar et al. Quantum and Blockchain for Modern Computing Systems: Vision and Advancements. Springer, 2022. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-04613-1
↑ T. Subramanian et al. Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Blockchain in Quantum Satellite, Drone and Network. CRC Press, 2022. ISBN 9781003201069. doi:10.1201/9781003201069
↑ S. S. Gill, M. Xu, C. Ottaviani, P. Patros, R. Bahsoon, A. Shaghaghi, M. Golec, V. Stankovski, H. Wu, A. Abraham, et al. AI for next generation computing: Emerging trends and future directions. Internet of Things, vol. 19, p. 100514, 2022. doi:10.1016/j.iot.2022.100514
↑ G. K. Walia et al. AI-empowered fog/edge resource management for IoT applications: A comprehensive review, research challenges and future perspectives. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 2023. doi:10.1109/COMST.2023.3337955
↑ A. Avizienis, J.-C. Laprie, B. Randell, and C. Landwehr. Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 11 – 33, 2004. doi:10.1109/TDSC.2004.2
↑ A. Paler and S. J. Devitt. An introduction into fault-tolerant quantum computing. In 2015 52nd ACM/EDAC/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), pp. 1–6, 2015. doi:10.1145/2744769.2744838
↑ R. Singh et al. Edge AI: a survey. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems, vol. 3, pp. 71–92, 2023. doi:10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.05.004
↑ S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson. Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead. Science, vol. 362, no. 6412, p. eaam9288, 2018. doi:10.1126/science.aam9288
↑ Quantum Computing: Vision and Challenges. arXiv:2403.02240, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.02240.
↑ 2025: The year to become Quantum-Ready. Microsoft Azure Quantum Blog, Jan 2025. URL https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/quantum/2025/01/14/2025-the-year-to-become-quantum-ready/.
↑ The Year of Quantum: From concept to reality in 2025. McKinsey, Jun 2025. URL https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/tech-and-ai/our-insights/the-year-of-quantum-from-concept-to-reality-in-2025.
↑ ^501.0 ^501.1 ^501.2 M. AbuGhanem. Superconducting quantum computers: who is leading the future? EPJ Quantum Technol., 12:102, 2025. doi:10.1140/epjqt/s40507-025-00405-7
↑ ^502.0 ^502.1 ^502.2 M. S. Akter, J. Rodriguez-Cardenas, H. Shahriar, A. Cuzzocrea, and F. Wu. Quantum cryptography for enhanced network security: a comprehensive survey of research, developments, and future directions. In IEEE Big Data 2021, pages 5408–5417, 2023. doi:10.1109/bigdata59044.2023.10386889
↑ ^503.0 ^503.1 ^503.2 L. Andersen, P. Berta, and C. Rebentrost. Hardware–software co-design for quantum advantage: bridging algorithms and architectures. Nat. Rev. Phys., 7:450–464, 2025. doi:10.1038/s42254-025-00918-z
↑ ^504.0 ^504.1 ^504.2 F. Arute et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature, 574:505–510, 2019. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5
↑ ^505.0 ^505.1 ^505.2 Y. Baseri, V. Chouhan, and A. Hafid. Navigating quantum security risks in networked environments: a comprehensive study of quantum-safe network protocols. Comput. Secur., 142:103883, 2024. doi:10.1016/j.cose.2024.103883
↑ ^506.0 ^506.1 ^506.2 F. Bauer-Marquart, S. Leue, and C. Schilling. symQV: automated symbolic verification of quantum programs. arXiv:2212.02267, 2022. (No published DOI).
↑ ^507.0 ^507.1 ^507.2 ^507.3 P. Benioff. The computer as a physical system: a microscopic quantum mechanical Hamiltonian model of computers as represented by turing machines. J. Stat. Phys., 22:563–591, 1980. doi:10.1007/BF01011339
↑ ^508.0 ^508.1 ^508.2 G. Brassard, P. Høyer, M. Mosca, and A. Tapp. Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation. arXiv:quant-ph/0005055, 2000. (No published DOI).
↑ ^509.0 ^509.1 M. Carter and E. Gheorghiu. QBench and QPack: frameworks for benchmarking quantum algorithms. ACM Trans. Quantum Comput., 6(3), 2024. doi:10.1145/3691041
↑ ^510.0 ^510.1 ^510.2 CertiQ. CertiQ – compiler/circuit equivalence verification. arXiv, 2025. (No published DOI).
↑ ^511.0 ^511.1 ^511.2 ^511.3 ^511.4 E. Chae, J. Choi, and J. Kim. An elementary review on basic principles and developments of qubits for quantum computing. Nano Converg., 11:11, 2024. doi:10.1186/s40580-024-00418-5
↑ ^512.0 ^512.1 ^512.2 ^512.3 S.-J. Chen and Y. Tsai. Quantum-safe networks for 6G. 2:1, 2025. doi:10.69709/caic.2025.102135
↑ ^513.0 ^513.1 ^513.2 ^513.3 ^513.4 J.-S. Chen, E. Nielsen, M. Ebert, V. Inlek, K. Wright, V. Chaplin, et al. Benchmarking a trapped-ion quantum computer with 30 qubits. Quantum, 8:1516, 2024. doi:10.22331/q-2024-11-07-1516
↑ ^514.0 ^514.1 ^514.2 G. Chhetri, S. Somvanshi, P. Hebli, S. Brotee, and S. Das. Post-quantum cryptography and quantum-safe security. arXiv:2510.10436, 2025. (No published DOI).
↑ ^515.0 ^515.1 A. Chohan. A comparative review of quantum bits: superconducting, topological, spin, and emerging qubit technologies. SSRN Preprint, 2024. Available online at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4979773. (No DOI).
↑ ^516.0 ^516.1 Colobridge Blog. Quantum computing 2025 — comparison of leading Qubit technologies. Available online at: https://blog.colobridge.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Comparison-of-Leading-Qubit-Technologies_%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB-1-1024x536.jpg, 2025. (No DOI, website).
↑ ^517.0 ^517.1 CoqQ. CoqQ – deductive verification framework for quantum programs. arXiv, 2025. (No published DOI).
↑ ^518.0 ^518.1 ^518.2 ^518.3 ^518.4 ^518.5 ^518.6 A. M. Dalzell. Quantum algorithms: a survey of applications and end-to-end complexities. Cambridge University Press, 2023. (No DOI).
↑ ^519.0 ^519.1 A. Das, T. Singh, and P. Kumar. QSEC: Quantum software error correction and certification framework. IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng., 5:5203012, 2024. doi:10.1109/TQE.2024.5203012
↑ ^520.0 ^520.1 D. Deutsch. Quantum theory, the church–turing principle and the universal quantum computer. Proc. R. Soc. A, 400:97–117, 1985. doi:10.1098/rspa.1985.0070
↑ ^521.0 ^521.1 EPJ Quantum Technology. Industry quantum computing applications: bridging algorithms and hardware. Available online at: https://epjquantumtechnology.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjqt/s40507-021-00114-x, 2021. (No DOI).
↑ ^522.0 ^522.1 ^522.2 E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv:1411.4028, 2014. (No published DOI).
↑ ^523.0 ^523.1 ^523.2 M. J. H. Faruk, S. Tahora, M. Tasnim, H. Shahriar, and N. Sakib. A review of quantum cybersecurity. In IEEE ICAIC 2022, 2022. doi:10.1109/icaic53980.2022.9896970
↑ ^524.0 ^524.1 R. P. Feynman. Simulating physics with computers. Int. J. Theor. Phys., 21:467–488, 1982. doi:10.1007/BF02650179
↑ S. S. Gill, A. Kumar, M. Singh, K. Kaur, R. Buyya, M. Usman, et al. Quantum computing: a taxonomy, systematic review and future directions. Softw. Pract. Exp., 50(6):1074–1106, 2020. doi:10.1002/spe.3039
↑ S. Goswami and P. Patel. Hybrid qubit systems: integrating photonic, NV-center and superconducting technologies. J. Quantum Eng., 3, 2025. doi:10.1088/2633-4356/ad19d2
↑ A. Grigoryan, S. Kumar, and P. R. Pinheiro. A review on models and applications of quantum computing. Computation, 7(3):39, 2025. doi:10.3390/computation7030039
↑ ^528.0 ^528.1 L. K. Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. arXiv:quant-ph/9605043, 1996. (No published DOI).
↑ A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd. Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations. Phys. Rev. Lett., 103:150502, 2009. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.150502
↑ D. Herman. A survey of quantum computing for finance. arXiv:2201.02773, 2022. (No published DOI).
↑ S. Hiremath, P. Kumar, and R. Singh. A literature survey on quantum computing in next generation challenges in circuit design and applications of future enabling technologies. Int. J. Comput. Appl., 187(1):1–8, 2025. (No DOI).
↑ C. Huot, S. V. Heng, T.-K. Kim, and Y. Han. Quantum autoencoder for enhanced fraud detection in imbalanced credit card dataset. IEEE Access, 12:169671–169681, 2024. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3496901
↑ L. Huynh, J. Hong, A. Mian, H. Suzuki, Y. Wu, and S. Camtepe. Quantum-inspired machine learning: a survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.11269, 2023. (No published DOI).
↑ IBM Quantum. IBM osprey: 433-qubit quantum processor. IBM Research Blog, 2023. Available online at: https://research.ibm.com/blog/ibm-osprey. (No DOI).
↑ IBM Quantum. IBM quantum roadmap. IBM Research Blog, 2025. Available online at: https://research.ibm.com/blog/ibm-quantum-roadmap. (No DOI).
↑ E. Khabiboulline, J. Romero, and A. Kubica. Bridging theory and implementation in quantum computing: challenges and opportunities. Commun. ACM, 68(7):72–81, 2025. doi:10.1145/3679312
↑ D. Kim, Y. Yamamoto, and S. Gill. Photonic and hybrid quantum processors: integration challenges and opportunities. IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng., 6:5402311, 2025. doi:10.1109/TQE.2025.5402311
↑ A. Kumar. A brief history of quantum computing. Medium, 2022. Available online at: https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1400/1*N3CWuTrxr-tg27I2_9Xrmw.png. (No DOI).
↑ R. Laflamme, E. Knill, and W. H. Zurek. Demonstration of a five-qubit quantum computer. IBM Research News Archive, 2001. (No DOI).
↑ S. Lee, D. Patel, and Y. Wang. Quantum algorithms for quantum molecular systems: a survey. WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci., 15(2):e70020, 2024. doi:10.1002/wcms.70020
↑ D. Lewis, S. Soudjani, and P. Zuliani. Formal verification of quantum programs: theory, tools and challenges. arXiv:2110.01320, 2021. (No published DOI).
↑ C. Majdoubi, S. E. Mendili, and Y. Gahi. Quantum cryptology in the big data security era. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl., 15, 2024. doi:10.14569/ijacsa.2024.0150761
↑ A. A. Mamun, A. Abrar, M. Rahman, M. S. Salek, and M. Chowdhury. Enhancing TCPS security: a shift to PQC. arXiv:2411.13023, 2024. (No published DOI).
↑ T. Monroe. Recent advances in trapped-ion quantum processors. Nat. Photonics, 18:210–223, 2024. doi:10.1038/s41566-024-01987-y
↑ J. O. Moral. Cybersecurity in critical infrastructures: a PQC perspective. 2024. (No DOI).
↑ S. Morales, E. Leue, and F. Bauer-Marquart. Hybrid-QEC: integrating classical and quantum verification for fault-tolerant compilation. npj Quantum Inf., 11(33):1–14, 2025. doi:10.1038/s41534-025-00832-y
↑ M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press, 2010. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511976667
↑ M. Ong, J. Kwon, and C. Schilling. Survey of reliability challenges in quantum software stacks: testing, debugging, and verification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.06741, 2024. (No published DOI).
↑ D. J. Ott and C. Peikert. Post quantum cryptography migration. arXiv:1909.07353, 2019. (No published DOI).
↑ M. Patel and R. Zurek. Integrated quantum hardware–software co-design: a roadmap toward practical quantum advantage. IEEE Access, 13:78512–78528, 2025. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3459821
↑ ^551.0 ^551.1 A. Peruzzo et al. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nat. Commun., 5:4213, 2014. doi:10.1038/ncomms5213
↑ ^552.0 ^552.1 J. Preskill. Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum, 2:79, 2018. doi:10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79
↑ PRISM. PRISM – probabilistic model checking tool. ACM Digital Library, 2025. (No DOI).
↑ Qafny. Qafny – proof system for quantum programs. arXiv, 2025. (No published DOI).
↑ QEC. Quantum equivalence checker – circuit equivalence tool. dcs.gla.ac.uk, 2025. (No DOI).
↑ ^556.0 ^556.1 QHLProver. QHLProver – Quantum hoare logic prover. arXiv, 2025. (No published DOI).
↑ QPMC. QPMC – quantum program/protocol model checker. opus.lib.uts.edu.au, 2025. (No DOI).
↑ IBM Quantum. Understanding multi-qubit interactions and two-qubit gates. IBM Quantum Learning, 2024. Available online at: https://quantum-computing.ibm.com. (No DOI).
↑ IBM Quantum. IBM quantum system two architecture and modular scaling approach. IBM Research Blog, 2025. Available online at: https://research.ibm.com/blog/ibm-quantum-system-two. (No DOI).
↑ ^560.0 ^560.1 Quantum Algorithm Zoo. Comprehensive catalogue of quantum algorithms. Available online at: https://quantumalgorithmzoo.org/, 2025. (No DOI).
↑ Quantum Computing. Pioneers of quantum computing. SlideShare Presentation, 2021. Available online at: https://image.slidesharecdn.com/quantumcomputing-211118090146/85/quantum-computing-5-320.jpg. (No DOI).
↑ D. Reynolds, T. Bravyi, and S. Lloyd. The next decade of quantum computing: from concept to scalable systems. Nat. Rev. Phys., 7:530–547, 2025. doi:10.1038/s42254-025-00943-y
↑ W. Robert. Cryptographic techniques for IoMT security. 2024. (No DOI).
↑ N. Rodriguez-Alvarez and F. Rodriguez-Merino. Performance and storage analysis of CRYSTALS-Kyber. 2025. (No DOI).
↑ ^565.0 ^565.1 S. K. Sahu and K. Mazumdar. Analysis of quantum cryptography applications. 2024. (No DOI).
↑ ^566.0 ^566.1 M. Schuld. Supervised quantum machine learning models are kernel methods. arXiv:2101.11020, 2021. (No published DOI).
↑ A. Scrivano. Comparative study of classical and post-quantum algorithms. 2025. (No DOI).
↑ N. Sharma, R. Verma, T. Patel, B. G. Wilkes, and B. Panuganti. Applications of quantum computing in clinical care. Front. Med., 12:1573016, 2025. doi:10.3389/fmed.2025.1573016
↑ Y. Shi. CertiQ: a mostly-automated verification of a realistic quantum compiler. arXiv:1908.08963, 2019. (No published DOI).
↑ ^570.0 ^570.1 P. W. Shor. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. arXiv:quant-ph/9508027, 1995. (No published DOI).
↑ SMT solvers – Z3. Yices. ACM Digital Library, n.d. (No DOI).
↑ ^572.0 ^572.1 S. Sonko. Quantum cryptography and U.S. digital security. 2024. (No DOI).
↑ STORM. STORM – probabilistic model checking tool. ACM Digital Library, 2025. (No DOI).
↑ ^574.0 ^574.1 ^574.2 V. Uotila, J. Ripatti, and B. Zhao. Higher-order portfolio optimization with quantum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.01496, 2025. (No published DOI).
↑ Veri-QEC. Veri-QEC – verification framework for quantum error-correcting programs. arXiv, 2025. (No published DOI).
↑ T. Vidal, F. Roser, and M. Lewis. Quantum optimization for finance and logistics: benchmarking real-world feasibility. npj Quantum Inf., 11(27), 2025. doi:10.1038/s41534-025-00790-4
↑ ^577.0 ^577.1 ^577.2 ^577.3 F. Zaman, S. Ali, M. Hussain, and A. Khan. A survey on quantum machine learning: current trends, challenges, opportunities, and the road ahead. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10315, 2023. (No published DOI).
↑ E. Zeydan. Quantum technologies for beyond 5G and 6G networks. 2025. (No DOI).
↑ ^579.0 ^579.1 ^579.2 A. Zhang, S. Kim, and M. P. Haataja. Quantum chemistry algorithms under noise: resource estimation and scalability. J. Chem. Phys., 160(14):244903, 2024. doi:10.1063/5.0198773
↑ Q. Zhao and M. Kumar. Benchmarking and noise characterization for heterogeneous quantum hardware. Phys. Rev. Appl., 21(4):045012, 2024. doi:10.1103/PhysRevApplied.21.045012
↑ ^581.0 ^581.1 ^581.2 R. Zhou, M. Gheorghiu, and K. Brown. QuVerify: a scalable framework for end-to-end verification of quantum programs. ACM Trans. Quantum Comput., 6(2):1–22, 2024. doi:10.1145/3689127
↑ L. Zhu and K. Browne. Topological qubits and quantum error protection: a review. Nat. Rev. Phys., 7:615–630, 2025. doi:10.1038/s42254-025-00976-4
↑ Quantum computing: foundations, algorithms, and emerging applications. Frontiers in Quantum Science and Technology, 2025. URL https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/quantum-science-and-technology/articles/10.3389/frqst.2025.1723319/full.
↑ Unlocking the Power of Quantum Computing with Practical Benchmarking Tools. cs.lbl.gov, Dec 2025. URL https://cs.lbl.gov/news-and-events/news/2025/unlocking-the-power-of-quantum-computing-with-practical-benchmarking-tools/.
↑ ^585.0 ^585.1 Our Quantum Echoes algorithm is a big step toward real-world applications for quantum computing. Google Blog, Oct 2025. URL https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/research/quantum-echoes-willow-verifiable-quantum-advantage/.
↑ O'Brien, Jeremy L. (7 December 2007). "Optical Quantum Computing". Science 318 (5856): 1567–1570. doi:10.1126/science.1142892. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1142892.
↑ AbuGhanem, M.; Eleuch, H. (2024). "NISQ Computers: A Path to Quantum Supremacy". IEEE Access 12: 102941–102961. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3432330. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10606265.
↑ Giordani, T.; Hoch, F.; Carvacho, G.; Spagnolo, N.; Sciarrino, F. (2023). "Integrated photonics in quantum technologies". La Rivista del Nuovo Cimento 46 (2): 71–103. doi:10.1007/s40766-023-00040-x. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40766-023-00040-x.
↑ A. Singh, K. Dev, H. Siljak, H. D. Joshi, and M. Magarini, "Quantum Internet—Applications, Functionalities, Enabling Technologies, Challenges, and Research Directions," IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 2218–2247, 2021. DOI: 10.1109/COMST.2021.3109944
↑ P. W.Shor, “Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,” SIAM review, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 303–332, 1999.
↑ S. Pirandola, L. Andersen, U., L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ottaviani, J. L. Pereira, M. Razavi, J. Shamsul Shaari, M. Tomamichel, V. C. Usenko, G. Vallone, P. Villoresi, and W. P., “Advances in quantum cryptography,” Advances in Optics and Photonics, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1012–1236, 2020.
↑ S. Pirandola and S. L. Braunstein, “Physics: Unite to build a quantum internet,” Nature, vol. 532, no. 7598, pp. 169–171, 2016.

Author: Harold Foppele

[01W-1] S. Aaronson. Read the fine print. Nature Physics, 11(4):291–293, 2015. doi:10.1038/nphys3270

[02W-2] 2.0 ^2.1 ^2.2 ^2.3 ^2.4 S. Aaronson. Shadow tomography of quantum states. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2018), pages 325–338, 2018. doi:10.1145/3188745.3188807

[03W-3] S. Aaronson. Shadow tomography of quantum states. SIAM Journal on Computing, 49(5):STOC18–368–STOC18–394, 2020. doi:10.1137/18M120275X

[04W-4] S. Aaronson and G. N. Rothblum. Gentle measurement of quantum states and differential privacy. arXiv preprint [arXiv:1905.06217], 2019. No published DOI.

[05W-5] D. Amaro, C. Modica, M. Rosenkranz, M. Fiorentini, M. Benedetti, and M. Lubasch. Filtering variational quantum algorithms for combinatorial optimization. Quantum Science and Technology, 7(1):015021, Jan. 2022. ISSN 2058-9565. doi: 10.1088/2058-9565/ac3e54. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/ac3e54.

[06W-6] 6.0 ^6.1 A. Anand, M. Degroote, and A. Aspuru-Guzik. Natural evolutionary strategies for variational quantum computation. Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 2(4): 045012, jul 2021. doi: 10.1088/2632-2153/abf3ac. URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F2632-2153%2Fabf3ac.

[07W-7] 7.0 ^7.1 A. Andreassen, I. Feige, C. Frye, and M. D. Schwartz. Junipr: a framework for unsupervised machine learning in particle physics. The European Physical Journal C, 79:1–24, 2019.

[08W-8] 8.0 ^8.1 ^8.2 ^8.3 ^8.4 A. Arrasmith, M. Cerezo, P. Czarnik, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles. Effect of barren plateaus on gradient-free optimization. Quantum, 5:558, Oct. 2021. ISSN 2521-327X. doi: 10.22331/q-2021-10-05-558. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-10-05-558.

[09W-9] 9.0 ^9.1 ^9.2 ^9.3 A. Arrasmith, Z. Holmes, M. Cerezo, and P. J. Coles. Equivalence of quantum barren plateaus to cost concentration and narrow gorges. Quantum Science and Technology, 7(4):045015, Aug. 2022. ISSN 2058-9565. doi: 10.1088/2058-9565/ac7d06. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/ac7d06.

[10W-10] S. Arunachalam, V. Gheorghiu, T. Jochym-O’Connor, M. Mosca, and P. V. Srinivasan. On the robustness of bucket brigade quantum ram. New Journal of Physics, 17(12):123010, Dec. 2015. ISSN 1367-2630. doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/17/12/123010. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/17/12/123010.

[11W-11] H. J. M. J. au2, A. Zaman, and H. Y. Wong. Step-by-step hhl algorithm walkthrough to enhance the understanding of critical quantum computing concepts, 2023.

[12W-12] B. Barak and K. Marwaha. Classical algorithms and quantum limitations for maximum cut on high-girth graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.05900, 2021.

[13W-13] 13.0 ^13.1 ^13.2 P. K. Barkoutsos, G. Nannicini, A. Robert, I. Tavernelli, and S. Woerner. Improving variational quantum optimization using cvar. Quantum, 4:256, 2020.

[14W-14] S. Becker, D. Englund, and B. Stiller. An optoacoustic field-programmable perceptron for recurrent neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.01543, 2023.

[15W-15] M. Benedetti, D. Garcia-Pintos, O. Perdomo, V. Leyton-Ortega, Y. Nam, and A. Perdomo-Ortiz. A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits. npj Quantum Information, 5(1):45, 2019.

[16W-16] 16.0 ^16.1 M. Benedetti, M. Fiorentini, and M. Lubasch. Hardware-efficient variational quantum algorithms for time evolution. Physical Review Research, 3(3), July 2021. ISSN 2643-1564. doi: 10.1103/physrevresearch.3.033083. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.033083.

[17W-17] K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, et al. Noisy intermediate-scale quantum (nisq) algorithms (2021). arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.08448, 2021.

[18W-18] 18.0 ^18.1 J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd. Quantum machine learning. Nature, 549(7671):195–202, 2017.

[19W-19] 19.0 ^19.1 M. Bilkis, M. Cerezo, G. Verdon, P. J. Coles, and L. Cincio. A semi-agnostic ansatz with variable structure for variational quantum algorithms. Quantum Machine Intelligence, 5(2), 2023. ISSN 2524-4914. doi: 10.1007/s42484-023-00132-1. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42484-023-00132-1.

[20W-20] L. Bittel and M. Kliesch. Training variational quantum algorithms is np-hard. Phys. Rev. Lett., 127:120502, Sep 2021. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.120502. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.120502.

[21W-21] K. Bu, D. E. Koh, L. Li, Q. Luo, and Y. Zhang. Statistical complexity of quantum circuits. Physical Review A, 105(6), June 2022. ISSN 2469-9934. doi: 10.1103/physreva.105.062431. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.105.062431.

[22W-22] K. Bu, D. E. Koh, L. Li, Q. Luo, and Y. Zhang. Effects of quantum resources and noise on the statistical complexity of quantum circuits. Quantum Science and Technology, 8(2):025013, Feb. 2023. ISSN 2058-9565. doi: 10.1088/2058-9565/acb56a. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/acb56a.

[23W-23] K. Bu, D. E. Koh, R. J. Garcia, and A. Jaffe. Classical shadows with pauli-invariant unitary ensembles. npj Quantum Information, 10(1), Jan. 2024. ISSN 2056-6387. doi: 10.1038/s41534-023-00801-w. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41534-023-00801-w.

[24W-24] D. Bultrini, S. Wang, P. Czarnik, M. H. Gordon, M. Cerezo, P. J. Coles, and L. Cincio. The battle of clean and dirty qubits in the era of partial error correction. Quantum, 7:1060, July 2023. ISSN 2521-327X. doi: 10.22331/q-2023-07-13-1060. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2023-07-13-1060.

[25W-25] 25.0 ^25.1 ^25.2 M. Cerezo, A. Sone, T. Volkoff, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles. Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits. Nature Communications, 12(1), Mar. 2021. ISSN 2041-1723. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21728-w. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21728-w.

[26W-26] 26.0 ^26.1 M. Cerezo, K. Sharma, A. Arrasmith, and P. J. Coles. Variational quantum state eigensolver. npj Quantum Information, 8(1):113, 2022.

[27W-27] M. Cerezo, G. Verdon, H.-Y. Huang, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles. Challenges and opportunities in quantum machine learning. Nature Computational Science, 2(9):567–576, 2022.

[28W-28] E. Cervero Martín, K. Plekhanov, and M. Lubasch. Barren plateaus in quantum tensor network optimization. Quantum, 7:974, Apr. 2023. ISSN 2521-327X. doi: 10.22331/q-2023-04-13-974. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2023-04-13-974.

[29W-29] H.-H. Chang. An introduction to error-correcting codes: From classical to quantum, 2006.

[30W-30] S. Chen, W. Yu, P. Zeng, and S. T. Flammia. Robust shadow estimation. PRX Quantum, 2(3), Sept. 2021. ISSN 2691-3399. doi: 10.1103/prxquantum.2.030348. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.030348.

[31W-31] 31.0 ^31.1 S. Cheng, J. Chen, and L. Wang. Information perspective to probabilistic modeling: Boltzmann machines versus born machines. Entropy, 20(8):583, 2018.

[32W-32] 32.0 ^32.1 N.-H. Chia, A. Gilyén, T. Li, H.-H. Lin, E. Tang, and C. Wang. Sampling-based sublinear low-rank matrix arithmetic framework for dequantizing quantum machine learning. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’20. ACM, June 2020. doi: 10.1145/3357713.3384314. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3357713.3384314.

[33W-33] 33.0 ^33.1 L. Chizat, E. Oyallon, and F. Bach. On lazy training in differentiable programming, 2020.

[34W-34] C. Ciliberto, M. Herbster, A. D. Ialongo, M. Pontil, A. Rocchetto, S. Severini, and L. Wossnig. Quantum machine learning: a classical perspective. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 474(2209):20170551, Jan. 2018. ISSN 1471-2946. doi: 10.1098/rspa.2017.0551. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2017.0551.

[35W-35] 35.0 ^35.1 L. Cincio, K. Rudinger, M. Sarovar, and P. J. Coles. Machine learning of noise-resilient quantum circuits. PRX Quantum, 2(1), Feb. 2021. ISSN 2691-3399. doi: 10.1103/prxquantum.2.010324. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.010324.

[36W-36] 36.0 ^36.1 ^36.2 J. Cotler, N. Hunter-Jones, J. Liu, and B. Yoshida. Chaos, complexity, and random matrices. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2017(11), Nov. 2017. ISSN 1029-8479. doi: 10.1007/jhep11(2017)048. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2017)048.

[37W-37] J. Cotler, H.-Y. Huang, and J. R. McClean. Revisiting dequantization and quantum advantage in learning tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.00811, 2021.

[38W-38] 38.0 ^38.1 P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, P. J. Coles, and L. Cincio. Error mitigation with clifford quantum-circuit data. Quantum, 5:592, Nov. 2021. ISSN 2521-327X. doi: 10.22331/q-2021-11-26-592. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-11-26-592.

[39W-39] A. Deshpande, P. Niroula, O. Shtanko, A. V. Gorshkov, B. Fefferman, and M. J. Gullans. Tight bounds on the convergence of noisy random circuits to the uniform distribution. PRX Quantum, 3(4), Dec. 2022. ISSN 2691-3399. doi: 10.1103/prxquantum.3.040329. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.040329.

[40W-40] 40.0 ^40.1 V. Dunjko and P. Wittek. A non-review of quantum machine learning: trends and explorations. Quantum Views, 4:32, 03 2020. doi: 10.22331/qv-2020-03-17-32.

[41W-41] 41.0 ^41.1 ^41.2 ^41.3 ^41.4 ^41.5 A. Elben, S. T. Flammia, H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, J. Preskill, B. Vermersch, and P. Zoller. The randomized measurement toolbox. Nature Reviews Physics, 5(1):9–24, Dec. 2022. ISSN 2522-5820. doi: 10.1038/s42254-022-00535-2. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s42254-022-00535-2.

[42W-42] S. Endo, Z. Cai, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan. Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms and quantum error mitigation. Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 90(3):032001, 2021.

[43W-43] T. J. Evans, R. Harper, and S. T. Flammia. Scalable bayesian hamiltonian learning, 2019.

[44W-44] E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014.

[45W-45] R. Feynman, A. Hey, and R. Allen. Lectures On Computation. Advanced book program. Basic Books, 1996. ISBN 9780201489910. URL https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=-olQAAAAMAAJ.

[46W-46] A. Garcia-Saez and J. Riu. Quantum observables for continuous control of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm via reinforcement learning, 2019.

[47W-47] A. Gilyén, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe. Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’19. ACM, June 2019. doi: 10.1145/3313276.3316366. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3313276.3316366.

[48W-48] C. E. Granade, C. Ferrie, N. Wiebe, and D. G. Cory. Robust online hamiltonian learning. New Journal of Physics, 14(10):103013, Oct. 2012. ISSN 1367-2630. doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/14/10/103013. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/14/10/103013.

[49W-49] H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall. An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer. Nature communications, 10(1):3007, 2019.

[50W-50] 50.0 ^50.1 ^50.2 L. K. Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search, 1996.

[51W-51] M. V. Gustafsson, T. Aref, A. F. Kockum, M. K. Ekström, G. Johansson, and P. Delsing. Propagating phonons coupled to an artificial atom. Science, 346(6206):207–211, 2014. ISSN 1095-9203. doi: 10.1126/science.1257219. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1257219.

[52W-52] H. HAFFNER, C. ROOS, and R. BLATT. Quantum computing with trapped ions. Physics Reports, 469(4):155–203, dec 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2008.09.003. URL https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.physrep.2008.09.003.

[53W-53] S. Hakkaku, Y. Tashima, K. Mitarai, W. Mizukami, and K. Fujii. Quantifying fermionic nonlinearity of quantum circuits. Physical Review Research, 4(4), Nov. 2022. ISSN 2643-1564. doi: 10.1103/physrevresearch.4.043100. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.043100.

[54W-54] C. T. Hann. Practicality of Quantum Random Access Memory. PhD thesis, Yale University, 2021.

[55W-55] 55.0 ^55.1 C. T. Hann, C.-L. Zou, Y. Zhang, Y. Chu, R. J. Schoelkopf, S. Girvin, and L. Jiang. Hardware-efficient quantum random access memory with hybrid quantum acoustic systems. Phys. Rev. Lett., 123:250501, Dec 2019.

[56W-56] C. T. Hann, C.-L. Zou, Y. Zhang, Y. Chu, R. J. Schoelkopf, S. M. Girvin, and L. Jiang. Hardware-efficient quantum random access memory with hybrid quantum acoustic systems. Phys. Rev. Lett., 123:250501, Dec 2019.

[57W-57] A. W. Harrow and J. C. Napp. Low-depth gradient measurements can improve convergence in variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms. Physical Review Letters, 126(14), apr 2021. doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.126.140502. URL https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevlett.126.140502.

[58W-58] A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd. Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations. Physical review letters, 103(15):150502, 2009.

[59W-59] A. W. Harrow, C. Y.-Y. Lin, and A. Montanaro. Sequential measurements, disturbance and property testing. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Jan. 2017. doi: 10.1137/1.9781611974782.105. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611974782.105.

[60W-60] Z. Holmes, K. Sharma, M. Cerezo, and P. J. Coles. Connecting ansatz expressibility to gradient magnitudes and barren plateaus. PRX Quantum, 3(1), Jan. 2022. ISSN 2691-3399. doi: 10.1103/prxquantum.3.010313. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.010313.

[61W-61] H.-Y. Huang, K. Bharti, and P. Rebentrost. Near-term quantum algorithms for linear systems of equations. arXiv e-prints, art. arXiv:1909.07344, Sept. 2019. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1909.07344.

[62W-62] H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill. Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements. Nature Physics, 16(10):1050–1057, jun 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41567-020-0932-7. URL https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fs41567-020-0932-7.

[63W-63] H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill. Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements. Nature Physics, 16(10):1050–1057, June 2020. ISSN 1745-2481. doi: 10.1038/s41567-020-0932-7. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-0932-7.

[64W-64] H.-Y. Huang, M. Broughton, M. Mohseni, R. Babbush, S. Boixo, H. Neven, and J. R. McClean. Power of data in quantum machine learning. Nature Communications, 12(1), may 2021. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-22539-9. URL https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fs41467-021-22539-9.

[65W-65] H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill. Efficient estimation of pauli observables by derandomization. Phys. Rev. Lett., 127:030503, Jul 2021. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.030503. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.030503.

[66W-66] 66.0 ^66.1 ^66.2 ^66.3 H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill. Information-theoretic bounds on quantum advantage in machine learning. Physical Review Letters, 126(19):190505, 2021.

[67W-67] 67.0 ^67.1 H.-Y. Huang, M. Broughton, J. Cotler, S. Chen, J. Li, M. Mohseni, H. Neven, R. Babbush, R. Kueng, J. Preskill, et al. Quantum advantage in learning from experiments. Science, 376(6598):1182–1186, 2022.

[68W-68] 68.0 ^68.1 H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, G. Torlai, V. V. Albert, and J. Preskill. Provably efficient machine learning for quantum many-body problems. Science, 377(6613), Sept. 2022. ISSN 1095-9203. doi: 10.1126/science.abk3333. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.abk3333.

[69W-69] P. Jain and P. Kar. Non-convex optimization for machine learning. Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning, 10(3–4):142–336, 2017. ISSN 1935-8245. doi: 10.1561/2200000058. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/2200000058.

[70W-70] C. Jin, P. Netrapalli, R. Ge, S. M. Kakade, and M. I. Jordan. On nonconvex optimization for machine learning: Gradients, stochasticity, and saddle points, 2019.

[71W-71] A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta. Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets. nature, 549(7671):242–246, 2017.

[72W-72] I. Kerenidis and A. Prakash. Quantum recommendation systems, 2016.

[73W-73] B. T. Kiani, S. Lloyd, and R. Maity. Learning unitaries by gradient descent, 2020.

[74W-74] I. D. Kivlichan, J. McClean, N. Wiebe, C. Gidney, A. Aspuru-Guzik, G. K.-L. Chan, and R. Babbush. Quantum simulation of electronic structure with linear depth and connectivity. Physical review letters, 120(11):110501, 2018.

[75W-75] D. E. Koh and S. Grewal. Classical shadows with noise. Quantum, 6:776, Aug. 2022. ISSN 2521-327X. doi: 10.22331/q-2022-08-16-776. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2022-08-16-776.

[76W-76] J. S. Kottmann, M. Krenn, T. H. Kyaw, S. Alperin-Lea, and A. Aspuru-Guzik. Quantum computer-aided design of quantum optics hardware. Quantum Science and Technology, 6(3):035010, 2021.

[77W-77] P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver. A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits. Applied physics reviews, 6(2), 2019.

[78W-78] M. Krenn, M. Erhard, and A. Zeilinger. Computer-inspired quantum experiments. Nature Reviews Physics, 2(11):649–661, 2020.

[79W-79] M. Larocca, N. Ju, D. Garcia-Martin, P. J. Coles, and M. Cerezo. Theory of overparametrization in quantum neural networks. Nature Computational Science, 3(6):542–551, 2023. ISSN 2662-8457. doi: 10.1038/s43588-023-00467-6. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s43588-023-00467-6.

[80W-80] R. LaRose and B. Coyle. Robust data encodings for quantum classifiers. Physical Review A, 102(3), Sept. 2020. ISSN 2469-9934. doi: 10.1103/physreva.102.032420. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.102.032420.

[81W-81] R. LaRose, A. Tikku, E. O’Neel-Judy, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles. Variational quantum state diagonalization. npj Quantum Information, 5(1), 2019. ISSN 2056-6387. doi: 10.1038/s41534-019-0167-6. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41534-019-0167-6.

[82W-82] J. Lee, W. J. Huggins, M. Head-Gordon, and K. B. Whaley. Generalized unitary coupled cluster wave functions for quantum computation. Journal of chemical theory and computation, 15(1):311–324, 2018.

[83W-83] L. Li, M. Fan, M. Coram, P. Riley, S. Leichenauer, et al. Quantum optimization with a novel gibbs objective function and ansatz architecture search. Physical Review Research, 2(2):023074, 2020.

[84W-84] J. Liu. Spectral form factors and late time quantum chaos. Physical Review D, 98(8), Oct. 2018. ISSN 2470-0029. doi: 10.1103/physrevd.98.086026. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.086026.

[85W-85] J. Liu. Scrambling and decoding the charged quantum information. Physical Review Research, 2(4), Oct. 2020. ISSN 2643-1564. doi: 10.1103/physrevresearch.2.043164. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.043164.

[86W-86] J. Liu, Z. Lin, and L. Jiang. Laziness, barren plateau, and noise in machine learning, 2022.

[87W-87] J. Liu, F. Tacchino, J. R. Glick, L. Jiang, and A. Mezzacapo. Representation learning via quantum neural tangent kernels. PRX Quantum, 3(3):030323, 2022.

[88W-88] J. Liu, F. Wilde, A. A. Mele, L. Jiang, and J. Eisert. Noise can be helpful for variational quantum algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.06723, 2022.

[89W-89] J. Liu, M. Liu, J.-P. Liu, Z. Ye, Y. Wang, Y. Alexeev, J. Eisert, and L. Jiang. Towards provably efficient quantum algorithms for large-scale machine-learning models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03428, 2023.

[90W-90] J.-P. Liu, H. Ø. Kolden, H. K. Krovi, N. F. Loureiro, K. Trivisa, and A. M. Childs. Efficient quantum algorithm for dissipative nonlinear differential equations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(35), 2021. ISSN 1091-6490. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2026805118. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2026805118.

[91W-91] S. Lloyd. Universal quantum simulators. Science, 273(5278):1073–1078, 1996.

[92W-92] S. Lloyd, M. Mohseni, and P. Rebentrost. Quantum algorithms for supervised and unsupervised machine learning, 2013.

[93W-93] S. Lloyd, M. Mohseni, and P. Rebentrost. Quantum principal component analysis. Nature Physics, 10(9):631–633, July 2014. ISSN 1745-2481. doi: 10.1038/nphys3029. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys3029.

[94W-94] M. Lubasch, J. Joo, P. Moinier, M. Kiffner, and D. Jaksch. Variational quantum algorithms for nonlinear problems. Physical Review A, 101(1), Jan. 2020. ISSN 2469-9934. doi: 10.1103/physreva.101.010301. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.101.010301.

[95W-95] 95.0 ^95.1 C. O. Marrero, M. Kieferová, and N. Wiebe. Entanglement induced barren plateaus, 2021.

[96W-96] I. Marvian and S. Lloyd. Universal quantum emulator, 2016.

[97W-97] 97.0 ^97.1 J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru-Guzik. The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms. New Journal of Physics, 18(2):023023, 2016.

[98W-98] 98.0 ^98.1 ^98.2 ^98.3 J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H. Neven. Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes. Nature Communications, 9(1), Nov. 2018. ISSN 2041-1723. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07090-4. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07090-4.

[99W-99] K. Mitarai and K. Fujii. Methodology for replacing indirect measurements with direct measurements. Physical Review Research, 1(1), aug 2019. doi: 10.1103/physrevresearch.1.013006. URL https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevresearch.1.013006.

[100W-100] N. Moll, P. Barkoutsos, L. S. Bishop, J. M. Chow, A. Cross, D. J. Egger, S. Filipp, A. Fuhrer, J. M. Gambetta, M. Ganzhorn, et al. Quantum optimization using variational algorithms on near-term quantum devices. Quantum Science and Technology, 3(3):030503, 2018.

[101W-101] K. M. Nakanishi, K. Fujii, and S. Todo. Sequential minimal optimization for quantum-classical hybrid algorithms. Physical Review Research, 2(4), oct 2020. doi: 10.1103/physrevresearch.2.043158. URL https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevresearch.2.043158.

[102W-102] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press, 2010. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511976667.

[103W-103] A. O’Connell, M. Hofheinz, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, M. Lenander, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, D. Sank, H. Wang, M. Weides, J. Wenner, J. M. Martinis, and A. Cleland. Quantum ground state and single-phonon control of a mechanical resonator. Nature, 464(7289):697—703, April 2010. ISSN 0028-0836. doi: 10.1038/nature08967. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08967.

[104W-104] R. O’Donnell and J. Wright. Efficient quantum tomography, 2015.

[105W-105] M. Ostaszewski, E. Grant, and M. Benedetti. Structure optimization for parameterized quantum circuits. Quantum, 5:391, jan 2021. doi: 10.22331/q-2021-01-28-391. URL https://doi.org/10.22331%2Fq-2021-01-28-391.

[106W-106] T. L. Patti, K. Najafi, X. Gao, and S. F. Yelin. Entanglement devised barren plateau mitigation. Physical Review Research, 3(3), July 2021. ISSN 2643-1564. doi: 10.1103/physrevresearch.3.033090. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.033090.

[107W-107] A. Pérez-Salinas, A. Cervera-Lierta, E. Gil-Fuster, and J. I. Latorre. Data re-uploading for a universal quantum classifier. Quantum, 4:226, 2020.

[108W-108] A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’brien. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nature communications, 5(1):4213, 2014.

[109W-109] 109.0 ^109.1 J. Platt. Sequential minimal optimization: A fast algorithm for training support vector machines. Technical Report MSR-TR-98-14, Microsoft, April 1998.

[110W-110] J. Preskill. Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond. Quantum, 2:79, 2018.

[111W-111] 111.0 ^111.1 D. A. Roberts and B. Yoshida. Chaos and complexity by design. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2017(4), Apr. 2017. ISSN 1029-8479. doi: 10.1007/jhep04(2017)121. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2017)121.

[112W-112] D. A. Roberts, S. Yaida, and B. Hanin. The principles of deep learning theory. Cambridge University Press Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022.

[113W-113] 113.0 ^113.1 J. Roffe. Quantum error correction: an introductory guide. Contemporary Physics, 60(3):226–245, July 2019. ISSN 1366-5812. doi: 10.1080/00107514.2019.1667078. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00107514.2019.1667078.

[114W-114] 114.0 ^114.1 ^114.2 ^114.3 ^114.4 ^114.5 ^114.6 ^114.7 J. J. Sakurai and J. Napolitano. Modern Quantum Mechanics. Quantum physics, quantum information and quantum computation. Cambridge University Press, 10 2020. ISBN 978-0-8053-8291-4, 978-1-108-52742-2, 978-1-108-58728-0. doi: 10.1017/9781108587280.

[115W-115] K. Sharma, S. Khatri, M. Cerezo, and P. J. Coles. Noise resilience of variational quantum compiling. New Journal of Physics, 22(4):043006, Apr. 2020. ISSN 1367-2630. doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/ab784c. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ab784c.

[116W-116] K. Sharma, M. Cerezo, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles. Trainability of dissipative perceptron-based quantum neural networks. Physical Review Letters, 128(18), May 2022. ISSN 1079-7114. doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.128.180505. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.180505.

[117W-117] 117.0 ^117.1 P. Shor. Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring. In Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 124–134, 1994. doi: 10.1109/SFCS.1994.365700.

[118W-118] C. Song, K. Xu, W. Liu, C.-p. Yang, S.-B. Zheng, H. Deng, Q. Xie, K. Huang, Q. Guo, L. Zhang, P. Zhang, D. Xu, D. Zheng, X. Zhu, H. Wang, Y.-A. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, S. Han, and J.-W. Pan. 10-qubit entanglement and parallel logic operations with a superconducting circuit. Physical Review Letters, 119(18), Nov. 2017. ISSN 1079-7114. doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.119.180511. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.180511.

[119W-119] 119.0 ^119.1 ^119.2 ^119.3 G. Struchalin, Y. A. Zagorovskii, E. Kovlakov, S. Straupe, and S. Kulik. Experimental estimation of quantum state properties from classical shadows. PRX Quantum, 2:010307, Jan 2021. doi: 10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.010307. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.010307.

[120W-120] M. Suzuki. Generalized Trotter’s formula and systematic approximants of exponential operators and inner derivations with applications to many-body problems. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 51(2):183–190, June 1976. doi: 10.1007/BF01609348.

[121W-121] 121.0 ^121.1 ^121.2 E. Tang. A quantum-inspired classical algorithm for recommendation systems. In Proceedings of the 51st annual ACM SIGACT symposium on theory of computing, pages 217–228, 2019.

[122W-122] E. Tang. Quantum principal component analysis only achieves an exponential speedup because of its state preparation assumptions. Physical Review Letters, 127(6), Aug. 2021. ISSN 1079-7114. doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.127.060503. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.060503.

[123W-123] 123.0 ^123.1 ^123.2 A. G. Taube and R. J. Bartlett. New perspectives on unitary coupled-cluster theory. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, 106(15):3393–3401, Jan. 2006. doi: 10.1002/qua.21198.

[124W-124] K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta. Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits. Physical Review Letters, 119(18), Nov. 2017. ISSN 1079-7114. doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.119.180509. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.180509.

[125W-125] 125.0 ^125.1 A. V. Uvarov and J. D. Biamonte. On barren plateaus and cost function locality in variational quantum algorithms. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 54(24):245301, May 2021. ISSN 1751-8121. doi: 10.1088/1751-8121/abfac7. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/abfac7.

[126W-126] G. Verdon, M. Broughton, J. R. McClean, K. J. Sung, R. Babbush, Z. Jiang, H. Neven, and M. Mohseni. Learning to learn with quantum neural networks via classical neural networks, 2019.

[127W-127] 127.0 ^127.1 S. Wang, P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, M. Cerezo, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles. Can error mitigation improve trainability of noisy variational quantum algorithms?, 2021.

[128W-128] S. Wang, E. Fontana, M. Cerezo, K. Sharma, A. Sone, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles. Noise-induced barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms. Nature Communications, 12(1), Nov. 2021. ISSN 2041-1723. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-27045-6. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27045-6.

[129W-129] 129.0 ^129.1 Y. Wang, Y. Alexeev, L. Jiang, F. T. Chong, and J. Liu. Fundamental causal bounds of quantum random access memories. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13460, 2023.

[130W-130] M. M. Wauters, E. Panizon, G. B. Mbeng, and G. E. Santoro. Reinforcement-learning-assisted quantum optimization. Physical Review Research, 2(3), sep 2020. doi: 10.1103/physrevresearch.2.033446. URL https://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevresearch.2.033446.

[131W-131] 131.0 ^131.1 ^131.2 D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer. Progress towards practical quantum variational algorithms. Physical Review A, 92(4):042303, 2015.

[132W-132] 132.0 ^132.1 ^132.2 ^132.3 N. Wiebe, C. Granade, C. Ferrie, and D. Cory. Hamiltonian learning and certification using quantum resources. Physical Review Letters, 112(19), 2014. ISSN 1079-7114. doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.112.190501. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.190501.

[133W-133] 133.0 ^133.1 N. Wiebe, C. Granade, and D. G. Cory. Quantum bootstrapping via compressed quantum hamiltonian learning. New Journal of Physics, 17(2):022005, Feb. 2015. ISSN 1367-2630. doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/17/2/022005. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/17/2/022005.

[134W-134] D. Wierstra, T. Schaul, T. Glasmachers, Y. Sun, and J. Schmidhuber. Natural evolution strategies, 2011.

[135W-135] 135.0 ^135.1 ^135.2 B. Wu and D. E. Koh. Error-mitigated fermionic classical shadows on noisy quantum devices, 2023.

[136W-136] 136.0 ^136.1 J. Yao, M. Bukov, and L. Lin. Policy gradient based quantum approximate optimization algorithm, 2020.

[137W-137] 137.0 ^137.1 M. H. Yung, J. Casanova, A. Mezzacapo, J. McClean, L. Lamata, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and E. Solano. From transistor to trapped-ion computers for quantum chemistry. Scientific Reports, 4(1), 1 2014. doi: 10.1038/srep03589.

[138W-138] B. Zhang, J. Liu, X.-C. Wu, L. Jiang, and Q. Zhuang. Dynamical phase transition in quantum neural networks with large depth. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.18144, 2023.

[139W-139] 139.0 ^139.1 T. Zhao, G. Carleo, J. Stokes, and S. Veerapaneni. Natural evolution strategies and variational monte carlo. Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 2(2):02LT01, dec 2020. doi: 10.1088/2632-2153/abcb50. URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F2632-2153%2Fabcb50.

[140W-140] Variational Quantum Algorithms: From Theory to NISQ-Era Applications Challenges and Opportunities. Preprints.org, Aug 2025. URL https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202508.1482.

[141W-141] A Survey on Quantum Optimization Algorithms. ijrpr, 2025. URL https://ijrpr.com/uploads/V6ISSUE11/IJRPR55163.pdf.

[142W-142] A review on Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm and its variants. Physics Reports, 2024. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.02.002 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0370157324001078.

[01X-143] Alexeev, Y. et al. Quantum computer systems for scientific discovery. *PRX Quantum* **2**, 017001 (2021).

[02X-144] Bluvstein, D. et al. Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays. *Nature* **626**, 58–65 (2024).

[03X-145] 145.0 ^145.1 ^145.2 ^145.3 ^145.4 Ryan-Anderson, C. et al. Realization of real-time fault-tolerant quantum error correction. *Phys. Rev. X* **11**, 041058 (2021).

[04X-146] 146.0 ^146.1 Li, Y. et al. Quantum computing for scientific computing: A survey. *Future Gener. Comput. Syst.* **155**, 102012 (2024).

[05X-147] 147.0 ^147.1 Arute, F. et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. *Nature* **574**, 505–510 (2019).

[06X-148] Erdman, P. A. & Noé, F. Model-free optimization of power/efficiency tradeoffs in quantum thermal machines using reinforcement learning. *PNAS Nexus* **2**, pgad248 (2023).

[07X-149] 149.0 ^149.1 Willsch, D., Willsch, M., Jin, F., Michielsen, K. & De Raedt, H. Gpu-accelerated simulations of quantum annealing and the quantum approximate optimization algorithm. *Comput. Phys. Commun.* **278**, 108417 (2022).

[08X-150] 150.0 ^150.1 ^150.2 ^150.3 Thomson, S. J. & Eisert, J. Unravelling quantum dynamics using flow equations. *Nat. Phys.* **20**, 286–293 (2024).

[09X-151] Bandi, A., Adapa, P. V. S. R. & Kuchi, Y. E. V. P. K. The power of generative ai: A review of requirements, models, input-output formats, evaluation metrics, and challenges. *Future Internet* **15**, 260 (2023).

[10X-152] 152.0 ^152.1 Zhou, C. et al. A comprehensive survey on pretrained foundation models: a history from BERT to ChatGPT. *Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern.* https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-024-02443-6 (2024).

[11X-153] Vaswani, A. Attention is all you need. *In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems* (2017).

[12X-154] Achiam, J. et al. Gpt-4 technical report. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774 (2023).

[13X-155] 155.0 ^155.1 Yenduri, G. et al. Gpt (generative pre-trained transformer)-a comprehensive review on enabling technologies, potential applications, emerging challenges, and future directions. *IEEE Access* (2024).

[14X-156] Cheng, K. et al. Exploring the potential of gpt-4 in biomedical engineering: the dawn of a new era. *Ann. Biomed. Eng.* **51**, 1645–1653 (2023).

[15X-157] Liu, Y. et al. Generative artificial intelligence and its applications in materials science: Current situation and future perspectives. *J. Materiomics* **9**, 798–816 (2023).

[16X-158] Dunjko, V. & Briegel, H. J. Artificial intelligence and machine learning for quantum technologies. *Phys. Rev. A* **107**, 010101 (2023).

[17X-159] 159.0 ^159.1 Hornik, K., Stinchcombe, M. & White, H. Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators. *Neural Netw.* **2**, 359–366 (1989).

[18X-160] 160.0 ^160.1 Acampora, G. et al. Quantum computing and artificial intelligence: status and perspectives. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.23860 (2025).

[19X-161] 161.0 ^161.1 ^161.2 ^161.3 Chen, M. et al. Grovergpt-2: Simulating grover's algorithm via chain-of-thought reasoning and quantum-native tokenization. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.04880 (2025).

[20X-162] 162.0 ^162.1 ^162.2 Peral-García, D., Cruz-Benito, J. & García-Peñalvo, F. J. Systematic literature review: Quantum machine learning and its applications. *Artif. Intell. Rev.* **53**, 100030 (2024).

[21X-163] 163.0 ^163.1 Zhuhadar, L. P. & Lytras, M. D. The application of automl techniques in diabetes diagnosis: current approaches, performance, and future directions. *Sustainability* **15**, 13484 (2023).

[22X-164] LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y. & Hinton, G. Deep learning. *nature* **521**, 436–444 (2015).

[23X-165] 165.0 ^165.1 Janiesch, C., Zschech, P. & Heinrich, K. Machine learning and deep learning. *Electron. Mark.* **31**, 685–695 (2021).

[24X-166] Bernardo, J. et al. Generative or discriminative? getting the best of both worlds. *Bayesian Stat.* **8**, 3–24 (2007).

[25X-167] 167.0 ^167.1 Arulkumaran, K., Deisenroth, M. P., Brundage, M. & Bharath, A. A. Deep reinforcement learning: A brief survey. *IEEE Signal Process. Mag.* **34**, 26–38 (2017).

[26X-168] Shakya, A. K., Pillai, G. & Chakrabarty, S. Reinforcement learning algorithms: A brief survey. *Expert Syst. Appl.* **231**, 120495 (2023).

[27X-169] 169.0 ^169.1 Chowdhary, K. Fundamentals of Artificial Intelligence. (2020).

[28X-170] Khurana, D., Koli, A., Khatter, K. & Singh, S. Natural language processing: state of the art, current trends and challenges. *Multimed. Tools Appl.* **82**, 3713–3744 (2023).

[29X-171] 171.0 ^171.1 Irsoy, O. & Cardie, C. Deep recursive neural networks for compositionality in language. In *Proceedings of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems* (2014).

[30X-172] Socher, R., Lin, C. C., Manning, C. & Ng, A. Y. Parsing natural scenes and natural language with recursive neural networks. In *Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-11)*, 129–136 (2011).

[31X-173] 173.0 ^173.1 Han, K. et al. A survey on vision transformer. *IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.* **45**, 87–110 (2022).

[32X-174] 174.0 ^174.1 ^174.2 ^174.3 Ho, J., Jain, A. & Abbeel, P. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. *Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst.* **33**, 6840–6851 (2020).

[33X-175] 175.0 ^175.1 Ramesh, A., Dhariwal, P., Nichol, A., Chu, C. & Chen, M. Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.06125 (2022).

[34X-176] 176.0 ^176.1 Siddiqi, I. Engineering high-coherence superconducting qubits. *Nat. Rev. Mater.* **6**, 875–891 (2021).

[35X-177] 177.0 ^177.1 Marshall, M. C. et al. High-precision mapping of diamond crystal strain using quantum interferometry. *Phys. Rev. Appl.* **17**, 024041 (2022).

[36X-178] Usman, M., Wong, Y. Z., Hill, C. D. & Hollenberg, L. C. Framework for atomic-level characterisation of quantum computer arrays by machine learning. *NPJ Comput. Mater.* **6**, 19 (2020).

[37X-179] Scully, M. O. & Zubairy, M. S. *Quantum Optics* (Cambridge university press, 1997).

[38X-180] Menke, T. et al. Automated design of superconducting circuits and its application to 4-local couplers. *NPJ Quantum Inf.* **7**, 1–8 (2021).

[39X-181] 181.0 ^181.1 Menke, T. et al. Demonstration of tunable three-body interactions between superconducting qubits. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **129**, 220501 (2022).

[40X-182] Rajabzadeh, T., Boulton-McKeehan, A., Bonkowsky, S., Schuster, D. I. & Safavi-Naeini, A. H. A general framework for gradient-based optimization of superconducting quantum circuits using qubit discovery as a case study. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.12704 (2024).

[41X-183] 183.0 ^183.1 Kumar, S., Tuli, S., Koch, J., Jha, N. & Houck, A. A. *Graph: High-Coherence Superconducting Circuit Optimization Using Graph Machine Learning*. (2024).

[42X-184] Krenn, M., Kottmann, J. S., Tischler, N. & Aspuru-Guzik, A. Conceptual understanding through efficient automated design of quantum optical experiments. *Phys. Rev. X.* **11**, 031044 (2021).

[43X-185] 185.0 ^185.1 Flam-Shepherd, D. et al. Learning interpretable representations of entanglement in quantum optics experiments using deep generative models. *Nat. Mach. Intell.* **4**, 544–554 (2022).

[44X-186] Cervera-Lierta, A., Krenn, M. & Aspuru-Guzik, A. Design of quantum optical experiments with logic artificial intelligence. *Quantum* **6**, 836 (2022).

[45X-187] Li, Y. et al. Using reinforcement learning to guide graph state generation for photonic quantum computers. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.01038 (2024).

[46X-188] Severin, B. et al. Cross-platform autonomous control of minimal kitaev chains. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.04596 (2024).

[47X-189] 189.0 ^189.1 Fouad, A. F., Youssry, A., El-Rafei, A. & Hammad, S. Model-free distortion canceling and control of quantum devices. *Quantum Sci. Technol.* **10**, 015002 (2025).

[48X-190] Zhuang, F. et al. A comprehensive survey on transfer learning. *Proc. IEEE* **109**, 43–76 (2020).

[49X-191] 191.0 ^191.1 van Driel, D. et al. Cross-platform autonomous control of minimal kitaev chains. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.04596 (2024).

[50X-192] Krenn, M., Malik, M., Fickler, R., Lapkiewicz, R. & Zeilinger, A. Automated search for new quantum experiments. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **116**, 090405 (2016).

[51X-193] Wiebe, N., Granade, C., Ferrie, C. & Cory, D. G. Hamiltonian learning and certification using quantum resources. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **112**, 190501 (2014).

[52X-194] Gentile, A. A. et al. Learning models of quantum systems from experiments. *Nat. Phys.* **17**, 837–843 (2021).

[53X-195] 195.0 ^195.1 Gebhart, V. et al. Learning quantum systems. *Nat. Rev. Phys.* **5**, 141–156 (2023).

[54X-196] Flynn, B., Gentile, A. A., Wiebe, N., Santagati, R. & Laing, A. Quantum model learning agent: characterisation of quantum systems through machine learning. *N. J. Phys.* **24**, 053034 (2022).

[55X-197] 197.0 ^197.1 Sarma, B., Chen, J. & Borah, S. Precision quantum parameter inference with continuous observation. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.12650 (2024).

[56X-198] Preskill, J. Quantum computing in the nsiq era and beyond. *Quantum* **2**, 79 (2018).

[57X-199] 199.0 ^199.1 Che, L. et al. Learning quantum hamiltonians from single-qubit measurements. *Phys. Rev. Res.* **3**, 023246 (2021).

[58X-200] Luchnikov, I. A., Vintskevich, S. V., Grigoriev, D. A. & Filippov, S. N. Machine learning non-markovian quantum dynamics. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **124**, 140502 (2020).

[59X-201] Banchi, L., Grant, E., Rocchetto, A. & Severini, S. Modelling non-markovian quantum processes with recurrent neural networks. *N. J. Phys.* **20**, 123030 (2018).

[60X-202] Niu, M. Y. et al. Learning non-markovian quantum noise from moiré-enhanced swap spectroscopy with deep evolutionary algorithm. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1912.04368(2019).

[61X-203] 203.0 ^203.1 Youssry, A., Chapman, R. J., Peruzzo, A., Ferrie, C. & Tomamichel, M. Modeling and control of a reconfigurable photonic circuit using deep learning. *Quantum Sci. Technol.* **5**, 025001 (2020).

[62X-204] Krastanov, S. et al. Unboxing quantum black box models: Learning non-markovian dynamics. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2009.03902 (2020).

[63X-205] Youssry, A. et al. Experimental graybox quantum system identification and control. *NPJ Quantum Inf.* **10**, 9 (2024).

[64X-206] Craig, D. L. et al. Bridging the reality gap in quantum devices with physics-aware machine learning. *Phys. Rev. X* **14**, 011001 (2024).

[65X-207] 207.0 ^207.1 Percebois, G. J. et al. Reconstructing the potential configuration in a high-mobility semiconductor heterostructure with scanning gate microscopy. *SciPost Phys.* **15**, 242 (2023).

[66X-208] 208.0 ^208.1 Jung, K. et al. Deep learning enhanced individual nuclear-spin detection. *NPJ Quantum Inf.* **7**, 41 (2021).

[67X-209] 209.0 ^209.1 Kulshrestha, A., Safro, I. & Alexeev, Y. Qarchsearch: A scalable quantum architecture search package. In *Proceedings of the SC'23 Workshops of The International Conference on High Performance Computing, Network, Storage, and Analysis*, 1487–1491 (2023).

[68X-210] McClean, J. R., Boixo, S., Smelyanskiy, V. N., Babbush, R. & Neven, H. Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes. *Nat. Commun.* **9**, 4812 (2018).

[69X-211] 211.0 ^211.1 Allen-Zhu, Z., Li, Y. & Song, Z. A convergence theory for deep learning via over-parameterization. In *International conference on machine learning*, 242–252 (PMLR, 2019).

[70X-212] 212.0 ^212.1 ^212.2 ^212.3 ^212.4 ^212.5 Wang, S. et al. Noise-induced barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms. *Nat. Commun.* **12**, 6961 (2021).

[71X-213] 213.0 ^213.1 Anschuetz, E. R. & Kiani, B. T. Quantum variational algorithms are swamped with traps. *Nat. Commun.* **13**, 7760 (2022).

[72X-214] Shende, V. V., Markov, I. L. & Bullock, S. S. Synthesis of quantum logic circuits. *IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst.* **25**, 1000–1010 (2006).

[73X-215] 215.0 ^215.1 Bukov, M. et al. Reinforcement learning in different phases of quantum control. *Phys. Rev. X* **8**, 031086 (2018).

[74X-216] Kremer, D., Villar, V., Vishwakarma, S., Faro, I. & Cruz-Benito, J. AI methods for approximate compiling of unitaries. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.21225 (2024).

[75X-217] 217.0 ^217.1 Fürrutter, F., Muñoz-Gil, G. & Briegel, H. J. Quantum circuit synthesis with diffusion models. *Nat. Mach. Intell.* **6**, 515–524 (2024).

[76X-218] Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P. & Brox, T. U-Net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In *Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2015*. (eds. Navab, N., Hornegger, J., Wells, W. M. & Frangi, A. F.) 234–241 (Springer, 2015).

[77X-219] 219.0 ^219.1 Fürrutter, F., Chandani, Z., Hamamura, I., Briegel, H. J. & Muñoz-Gil, G. Synthesis of discrete-continuous quantum circuits with multimodal diffusion models. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.01666 (2025).

[78X-220] Ruiz, F. J. R. et al. Quantum circuit optimization with alphatensor. *Nat. Mach. Intell.* **7**, 374–385 (2025).

[79X-221] 221.0 ^221.1 Fōsel, T., Niu, M. Y., Marquardt, F. & Li, L. Quantum circuit optimization with deep reinforcement learning. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2103.07585 (2021).

[80X-222] Quetschlich, N., Burgholzer, L. & Wille, R. Compiler Optimization for Quantum Computing Using Reinforcement Learning. In 2023 60th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC). 1–6 (IEEE, 2023).

[81X-223] Li, Z. et al. QuarI: A Learning-Based Quantum Circuit Optimizer. *Proc. ACM Program. Lang.* **8**, 114 (2024).

[82X-224] Preti, F. et al. Hybrid discrete-continuous compilation of trapped-ion quantum circuits with deep reinforcement learning. *Quantum* **8**, 1343 (2024).

[83X-225] Kremer, D. et al. Practical and efficient quantum circuit synthesis and transpiling with reinforcement learning. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.13196 (2024).

[84X-226] Peruzzo, A. et al. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. *Nat. Commun.* **5**, 4213 (2014).

[85X-227] Nakaji et al. The generative quantum eigensolver (gqe) and its application for ground state search. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.09253 (2024).

[86X-228] Minami, S., Nakaji, K., Suzuki, Y., Aspuru-Guzik, A. & Kadowaki, T. Generative quantum combinatorial optimization by means of a novel conditional generative quantum eigensolver. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.16986 (2025).

[87X-229] 229.0 ^229.1 ^229.2 Tyagin, I. et al. Qaoa-gpt: Efficient generation of adaptive and regular quantum approximate optimization algorithm circuits. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.16350 (2025).

[88X-230] Bharti, K. et al. Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms. *Rev. Mod. Phys.* **94**, 015004 (2022).

[89X-231] Falla, J., Langfitt, Q., Safro, I. & Alexeev, Y. Parameter transferability in qaoa under noisy conditions. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), 2, 300–301 (IEEE, 2023).

[90X-232] Galda, A. et al. Similarity-based parameter transferability in the quantum approximate optimization algorithm. *Front. Quantum Sci. Technol.* **2**, 1200975 (2023).

[91X-233] Sud, J., Hadfield, S., Rieffel, E., Tubman, N. & Hogg, T. Parameter-setting heuristic for the quantum alternating operator ansatz. *Phys. Rev. Res.* **6**, 023171 (2024).

[92X-234] Narayanan, A. et al. graph2vec: Learning distributed representations of graphs. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1707.05005 (2017).

[93X-235] Zhang, C., Jiang, L. & Chen, F. Qracle: A graph-neural-network-based parameter initializer for variational quantum eigensolvers. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.01236 (2025).

[94X-236] Chen, H. & Koga, H. Gl2vec: Graph embedding enriched by line graphs with edge features. In *Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing*, 3–14 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019).

[95X-237] Galda, A., Liu, X., Lykov, D., Alexeev, Y. & Safro, I. Transferability of optimal qaoa parameters between random graphs. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), 171–180 (IEEE, 2021).

[96X-238] Larocca, M. et al. A review of barren plateaus in variational quantum computing. *Nat. Rev. Phys.* **7**, 174–189 (2024).

[97X-239] Langfitt, Q., Falla, J., Safro, I. & Alexeev, Y. Parameter transferability in qaoa under noisy conditions. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), 2, 300–301 (IEEE, 2023).

[98X-240] Verdon, G. et al. Learning to learn with quantum neural networks via classical neural networks. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1907.05415 (2019).

[99X-241] Wilson, M. et al. Optimizing quantum heuristics with meta-learning. *Quantum Mach. Intell.* **3**, 1–14 (2021).

[100X-242] Araujo, I. F., Park, D. K., Petruccione, F. & da Silva, A. J. A divide-and-conquer algorithm for quantum state preparation. *Sci. Rep.* **11**, 6329 (2021).

[101X-243] Arrazola, J. M. et al. Machine learning method for state preparation and gate synthesis on photonic quantum computers. *Quantum Sci. Technol.* **4**, 024004 (2019).

[102X-244] Cao, S. et al. Encoding optimization for quantum machine learning demonstrated on a superconducting transmon qutrit. *Quantum Sci. Technol.* **9**, 045037 (2024).

[103X-245] Roca-Jerat, S., Román-Roche, J. & Zueco, D. Qudit machine learning. *Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol.* **5**, 015057 (2024).

[104X-246] Sawaya, N. P. D. et al. HamLib: A library of Hamiltonians for benchmarking quantum algorithms and hardware. *Quantum* **8**, 1559 (2024).

[105X-247] Baek, U. et al. Say no to optimization: A nonorthogonal quantum eigensolver. *PRX Quantum* **4**, 030307 (2023).

[106X-248] 248.0 ^248.1 ^248.2 Mullinax, J. W. & Tubman, N. M. Large-scale sparse wave function circuit simulator for applications with the variational quantum eigensolver. *J. Chem. Phys.* **162**, 074114 (2025).

[107X-249] Khan, A., Clark, B. K. & Tubman, N. M. Pre-optimizing variational quantum eigensolvers with tensor networks. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.12965 (2023).

[108X-250] Zhang, X.-M., Wei, Z., Asad, R., Yang, X.-C. & Wang, X. When does reinforcement learning stand out in quantum control? a comparative study on state preparation. *NPJ Quantum Inf.* **5**, 85 (2019).

[109X-251] Liu, W., Xu, J. & Wang, B. A quantum states preparation method based on difference-driven reinforcement learning. *Spin* **13**, 2350013 (2023).

[110X-252] Ostaszewski, M., Trenkwalder, L. M., Masarczyk, W., Scerri, E. & Dunjko, V. Reinforcement learning for optimization of variational quantum circuit architectures. In *Neural Information Processing Systems* (2021).

[111X-253] Wang, Z. W. & Wang, Z. M. Arbitrary quantum states preparation aided by deep reinforcement learning. *Phys. Scr.* **100**, 045103 (2025).

[112X-254] Haug, T. et al. Classifying global state preparation via deep reinforcement learning. *Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol.* **2**, 01LT02 (2020).

[113X-255] Burton, H. G. A., Marti-Dafcik, D., Tew, D. P. & Wales, D. J. Exact electronic states with shallow quantum circuits from global optimisation. *npj Quantum Inf.* **9**, 75 (2023).

[114X-256] Sunkel, L., Martyniuk, D., Mattern, D., Jung, J. & Paschke, A. Ga4qco: Genetic algorithm for quantum circuit optimization. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.01303 (2023).

[115X-257] Chivilikhin, D. et al. Mog-vqe: Multiobjective genetic variational quantum eigensolver. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2007.04424 (2020).

[116X-258] Sorourifar, F. et al. Toward efficient quantum computation of molecular ground-state energies. *AIChE J.* **e18887** (2025).

[117X-259] Dutfield, S., Benedetti, M. & Rosenkranz, M. Bayesian learning of parameterised quantum circuits. *Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol.* **4**, 025007 (2023).

[118X-260] Machnes, S. et al. Comparing, optimizing, and benchmarking quantum-control algorithms in a unifying programming framework. *Phys. Rev. A* **84**, 022305 (2011).

[119X-261] Spörl, A. et al. Optimal control of coupled josephson qubits. *Phys. Rev. A* **75**, 012302 (2007).

[120X-262] Heeres, R. W. et al. Implementing a universal gate set on a logical qubit encoded in an oscillator. *Nat. Commun.* **8**, 94 (2017).

[121X-263] Khaneja, N., Reiss, T., Kehlet, C., Schulte-Herbrüggen, T. & Glaser, S. J. Optimal control of coupled spin dynamics: design of NMR pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms. *J. Magn. Reson.* **172**, 296–305 (2005).

[122X-264] Sivak, V. V. et al. Model-free quantum control with reinforcement learning. *Phys. Rev. X* **12**, 011059 (2022).

[123X-265] Ding, Y. et al. Breaking adiabatic quantum control with deep learning. *Phys. Rev. A* **103**, L040401 (2021).

[124X-266] Nguyen, H. N. et al. Reinforcement learning pulses for transmon qubit entangling gates. *Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol.* **5**, 025066 (2024).

[125X-267] Daraeizadeh, S. et al. Machine-learning-based three-qubit gate design for the toffoli gate and parity check in transmon systems. *Phys. Rev. A* **102**, 012601 (2020).

[126X-268] Wright, E. & De Sousa, R. Fast quantum gate design with deep reinforcement learning using real-time feedback on readout signals. In *2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE)*, 2, 1295–1303 (IEEE, 2023).

[127X-269] 269.0 ^269.1 ^269.2 Sivak, V. V. et al. Real-time quantum error correction beyond break-even. *Nature* **616**, 50–55 (2023).

[128X-270] 270.0 ^270.1 ^270.2 Porotti, R., Essig, A., Huard, B. & Marquardt, F. Gradient-ascent pulse engineering with feedback. *PRX Quantum* **4**, 030305 (2023).

[129X-271] Darulová, J. et al. Autotuning of double-dot devices in situ with machine learning. *Phys. Rev. Appl.* **13**, 054005 (2020).

[130X-272] Kalantre, S. S. et al. Machine learning techniques for state recognition and auto-tuning in quantum dots. *NPJ Quantum Inf.* **5**, 6 (2019).

[131X-273] Nguyen, V. et al. Deep reinforcement learning for efficient measurement of quantum devices. *NPJ Quantum Inf.* **7**, 100 (2021).

[132X-274] van Esbroeck, N. M. et al. Automated long-range compensation of an rf quantum dot sensor. *Phys. Rev. Appl.* **22**, 064026 (2024).

[133X-275] Durrer, R. et al. Automated tuning of double quantum dots into specific charge states using neural networks. *Phys. Rev. Appl.* **13**, 054019 (2020).

[134X-276] Schuff, J. et al. Identifying pauli spin blockade using deep learning. *Quantum* **7**, 1077 (2023).

[135X-277] Moon, H. et al. Machine learning enables completely automatic tuning of a quantum device faster than human experts. *Nat. Commun.* **11**, 4161 (2020).

[136X-278] van Straaten, B. et al. All-rf-based coarse-tuning algorithm for quantum devices using machine learning. *Phys. Rev. Appl.* https://doi.org/10.1103/v1lm-dbhm (2025).

[137X-279] Severin, B. *AI for Quantum Computing in Silicon*. Ph.D. thesis, Oxford University (2023).

[138X-280] Hickie, J. et al. Automated long-range compensation of an rf quantum dot sensor. *Phys. Rev. Appl.* **22**, 064026 (2024).

[139X-281] Rao, A. S. et al. Modular Autonomous Virtualization System for Two-Dimensional Semiconductor Quantum Dot Arrays. *Phys. Rev. X* **15**, 021034 (2025).

[140X-282] Schuff, J. et al. Fully autonomous tuning of a spin qubit. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.03931 (2024).

[141X-283] Carballido, M. J. et al. Compromise-free scaling of qubit speed and coherence. *Nat. Commun.* **16**, 7616 (2025).

[142X-284] Wozniakowski, A., Thompson, J., Gu, M. & Binder, F. C. A new formulation of gradient boosting. *Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol.* **2**, 045022 (2021).

[143X-285] Daraeizadeh, S., Premaratne, S. P. & Matsuura, A. Y. Designing high-fidelity multi-qubit gates for semiconductor quantum dots through deep reinforcement learning. In *2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE)*, 30–36 (IEEE, 2020).

[144X-286] Berritta, F. et al. Real-time two-axis control of a spin qubit. *Nat. Commun.* **15**, 1676 (2024).

[145X-287] 287.0 ^287.1 ^287.2 Berritta, F. et al. Physics-informed tracking of qubit fluctuations. *Phys. Rev. Appl.* **22**, 014033 (2024).

[146X-288] Scerri, E., Gauger, E. M. & Bonato, C. Extending qubit coherence by adaptive quantum environment learning. *N. J. Phys.* **22**, 035002 (2020).

[147X-289] 289.0 ^289.1 ^289.2 Arshad, M. J. et al. Real-time adaptive estimation of decoherence timescales for a single qubit. *Phys. Rev. Appl.* **21**, 024026 (2024).

[148X-290] 290.0 ^290.1 Koolstra, G. et al. Monitoring fast superconducting qubit dynamics using a neural network. *Phys. Rev. X* **12**, 031017 (2022).

[149X-291] 291.0 ^291.1 Flurin, E., Martin, L. S., Hacohen-Gourgy, S. & Siddiqi, I. Using a recurrent neural network to reconstruct quantum dynamics of a superconducting qubit from physical observations. *Phys. Rev. X* **10**, 011006 (2020).

[150X-292] 292.0 ^292.1 Porotti, R. et al. Deep reinforcement learning for quantum state preparation with weak nonlinear measurements. *Quantum* **6**, 747 (2022).

[151X-293] 293.0 ^293.1 Vora, N. R. et al. Ml-powered fpga-based real-time quantum state discrimination enabling mid-circuit measurements. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.18807 (2024).

[152X-294] 294.0 ^294.1 ^294.2 Metz, F. & Bukov, M. Self-correcting quantum many-body control using reinforcement learning with tensor networks. *Nat. Mach. Intell.* **5**, 780–791 (2023).

[153X-295] 295.0 ^295.1 ^295.2 Niu, M. Y., Boixo, S., Smelyanskiy, V. N. & Neven, H. Universal quantum control through deep reinforcement learning. *NPJ Quantum Inf.* **5**, 33 (2019).

[154X-296] 296.0 ^296.1 Reuer, K. et al. Realizing a deep reinforcement learning agent for real-time quantum feedback. *Nat. Commun.* **14**, 7138 (2023).

[155X-297] 297.0 ^297.1 Cimini, V. et al. Calibration of quantum sensors by neural networks. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **123**, 230502 (2019).

[156X-298] 298.0 ^298.1 ^298.2 Cimini, V. et al. Calibration of multiparameter sensors via machine learning at the single-photon level. *Phys. Rev. Appl.* **15**, 044003 (2021).

[157X-299] 299.0 ^299.1 ^299.2 Rahman, A., Egger, D. J. & Arenz, C. Learning how to dynamically decouple by optimizing rotational gates. *Phys. Rev. Appl.* **22**, 054074 (2024).

[158X-300] 300.0 ^300.1 ^300.2 Tong, C., Zhang, H. & Pokharel, B. Empirical learning of dynamical decoupling on quantum processors. *PRX Quantum* **6**, 030319 (2025).

[159X-301] Huang, J. Y. et al. High-fidelity spin qubit operation and algorithmic initialization above 1 K. *Nature* **627**, 772–777 (2024).

[160X-302] Sarma, B., Borah, S., Kani, A. & Twamley, J. Accelerated motional cooling with deep reinforcement learning. *Phys. Rev. Res.* **4**, L042038 (2022).

[161X-303] Porotti, R., Tamascelli, D., Restelli, M. & Prati, E. Coherent transport of quantum states by deep reinforcement learning. *Commun. Phys.* **2**, 61 (2019).

[162X-304] Boiko, D. A., MacKnight, R., Kline, B. & Gomes, G. Autonomous chemical research with large language models. *Nature* **624**, 570–578 (2023).

[163X-305] Zou, Y. et al. El Agente: An autonomous agent for quantum chemistry. *Matter* **8**, 102263 (2025).

[164X-306] M. Bran, A. et al. Augmenting large language models with chemistry tools. *Nat. Mach. Intell.* **6**, 525–535 (2024).

[165X-307] 307.0 ^307.1 ^307.2 Cao, S. et al. Automating quantum computing laboratory experiments with an agent-based AI framework. *Patterns* **6**, 101372 (2025).

[166X-308] 308.0 ^308.1 Silver, D. et al. A general reinforcement learning algorithm that masters chess, shogi, and Go through self-play. *Science* **362**, 1140–1144 (2018).

[167X-309] 309.0 ^309.1 Fawzi, A. et al. Discovering faster matrix multiplication algorithms with reinforcement learning. *Nature* **610**, 47–53 (2022).

[168X-310] 310.0 ^310.1 ^310.2 Chamberland, C., Goncalves, L., Sivarajah, P., Peterson, E. & Grimberg, S. Techniques for combining fast local decoders with global decoders under circuit-level noise. *Quantum Sci. Technol.* **8**, 045011 (2023).

[169X-311] 311.0 ^311.1 ^311.2 Skoric, L., Browne, D. E., Barnes, K. M., Gillespie, N. I. & Campbell, E. T. Parallel window decoding enables scalable fault tolerant quantum computation. *Nat. Commun.* **14**, 7040 (2023).

[170X-312] 312.0 ^312.1 ^312.2 Tan, X., Zhang, F., Chao, R., Shi, Y. & Chen, J. Scalable surface-code decoders with parallelization in time. *PRX Quantum* **4**, 040344 (2023).

[171X-313] 313.0 ^313.1 Battistel, F. et al. Real-time decoding for fault-tolerant quantum computing: Progress, challenges and outlook. *Nano Futures* **7**, 032003 (2023).

[172X-314] 314.0 ^314.1 Kurman, Y. et al. Benchmarking the Ability of a Controller to Execute Quantum Error Corrected Non-Clifford Circuits. *IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng.* **6**, 1–14 (2025).

[173X-315] 315.0 ^315.1 Litinski, D. A game of surface codes: Large-scale quantum computing with lattice surgery. *Quantum* **3**, 128 (2019).

[174X-316] 316.0 ^316.1 Chamberland, C. & Campbell, E. T. Universal quantum computing with twist-free and temporally encoded lattice surgery. *PRX Quantum* **3**, 010331 (2022).

[175X-317] 317.0 ^317.1 Torlai, G. & Melko, R. G. Neural decoder for topological codes. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **119**, 030501 (2017).

[176X-318] Chamberland, C. & Ronagh, P. Deep neural decoders for near term fault-tolerant experiments. *Quantum Sci. Technol.* **3**, 044002 (2018).

[177X-319] Wagner, T., Kampermann, H. & Bruß, D. Symmetries for a high-level neural decoder on the toric code. *Phys. Rev. A* **102**, 042411 (2020).

[178X-320] Baireuther, P., O'Brien, T. E., Tarasinski, B. & Beenakker, C. W. Machine-learning-assisted correction of correlated qubit errors in a topological code. *Quantum* **2**, 48 (2018).

[179X-321] Sweke, R., Kesselring, M. S., van Nieuwenburg, E. P. & Eisert, J. Reinforcement learning decoders for fault-tolerant quantum computation. *Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol.* **2**, 025005 (2020).

[180X-322] Andreasson, P., Johansson, J., Liljestrand, S. & Granath, M. Quantum error correction for the toric code using deep reinforcement learning. *Quantum* **3**, 183 (2019).

[181X-323] Breuckmann, N. P. & Ni, X. Scalable neural network decoders for higher dimensional quantum codes. *Quantum* **2**, 68 (2018).

[182X-324] Ueno, Y., Kondo, M., Tanaka, M., Suzuki, Y. & Tabuchi, Y. Neo-qec: Neural network enhanced online superconducting decoder for surface codes. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2208.05758 (2022).

[183X-325] Wang, H. et al. Transformer-qec: Quantum error correction code decoding with transferable transformers. In *2023 International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD), Fast Machine Learning for Science Workshop* (2023).

[184X-326] Lange, M. et al. Data-driven decoding of quantum error correcting codes using graph neural networks. *Phys. Rev. Res.* **7**, 023181 (2025).

[185X-327] Maan, A. S. & Paler, A. Machine learning message-passing for the scalable decoding of QLDPC codes. *npj Quantum Inf.* **11**, 78 (2025).

[186X-328] Wang, H. et al. Dgr: Tackling drifted and correlated noise in quantum error correction via decoding graph re-weighting. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.16214 (2023).

[187X-329] Davaasuren, A., Suzuki, Y., Fujii, K. & Koashi, M. General framework for constructing fast and near-optimal machine-learning-based decoder of the topological stabilizer codes. *Phys. Rev. Res.* **2**, 033399 (2020).

[188X-330] Gicev, S., Hollenberg, L. C. L. & Usman, M. A scalable and fast artificial neural network syndrome decoder for surface codes. *Quantum* **7**, 1058 (2023).

[189X-331] Hall, B., Gicev, S. & Usman, M. Artificial neural network syndrome decoding on ibm quantum processors. *Phys. Rev. Res.* **6**, L032004 (2024).

[190X-332] Blue, J., Avlani, H., He, Z., Ziyin, L. & Chuang, I. L. Machine learning decoding of circuit-level noise for bivariate bicycle codes. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.13043 (2025).

[191X-333] Rodriguez, P. S. et al. Experimental demonstration of logical magic state distillation. *Nature* **645**, 620–625 (2025).

[192X-334] Olle, J. et al. Simultaneous discovery of quantum error correction codes and encoders with a noise-aware reinforcement learning agent. *npj Quantum Inf.* **10**, 126 (2024).

[193X-335] Mauron, C., Farrelly, T. & Stace, T. M. Optimization of tensor network codes with reinforcement learning. *N. J. Phys.* **26**, 023024 (2024).

[194X-336] Su, V. P. et al. Discovery of optimal quantum codes via reinforcement learning. *Phys. Rev. Appl.* **23**, 034048 (2025).

[195X-337] Cao, C. & Lackey, B. Quantum lego: building quantum error correction codes from tensor networks. *PRX Quantum* **3**, 020332 (2022).

[196X-338] Delfosse, N. & Nickerson, N. H. Almost-linear time decoding algorithm for topological codes. *Quantum* **5**, 595 (2021).

[197X-339] 339.0 ^339.1 ^339.2 Gidney, C. How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers with less than a million noisy qubits. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.15917 (2025).

[198X-340] 340.0 ^340.1 ^340.2 ^340.3 ^340.4 Magesan, E., Gambetta, J. M., Córcoles, A. D. & Chow, J. M. Machine learning for discriminating quantum measurement trajectories and improving readout. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **114**, 200501 (2015).

[199X-341] Martinez, L. A., Rosen, Y. J. & DuBois, J. L. Improving qubit readout with hidden markov models. *Phys. Rev. A* **102**, 062426 (2020).

[200X-342] Lienhard, B. et al. Deep-neural-network discrimination of multiplexed superconducting-qubit states. *Phys. Rev. Appl.* **17**, 014024 (2022).

[201X-343] Quek, Y., Fort, S. & Ng, H. K. Adaptive quantum state tomography with neural networks. *NPJ Quantum Inf.* **7**, 105 (2021).

[202X-344] 344.0 ^344.1 ^344.2 ^344.3 Cao, S. et al. Efficient characterization of qudit logical gates with gate set tomography using an error-free virtual z gate model. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **133**, 120802 (2024).

[203X-345] Blume-Kohout, R. et al. A taxonomy of small markovian errors. *PRX Quantum* **3**, 020335 (2022).

[204X-346] Brieger, R., Roth, I. & Kliesch, M. Compressive gate set tomography. *PRX Quantum* **4**, 010325 (2023).

[205X-347] Yu, K. Y., Sarkar, A., Rimbach-Russ, M., Ishihara, R. & Feld, S. Transformer models for quantum gate set tomography. *Quantum Mach. Intell.* **7**, 10 (2025).

[206X-348] Zimborás, Z. et al. Myths around quantum computation before full fault tolerance: What no-go theorems rule out and what they don't. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.05694 (2025).

[207X-349] 349.0 ^349.1 ^349.2 Aharonov, D. et al. On the importance of error mitigation for quantum computation. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.17243 (2025).

[208X-350] Bonet-Monroig, X., Sagastizabal, R., Singh, M. & O'Brien, T. E. Low-cost error mitigation by symmetry verification. *Phys. Rev. A* **98**, 062339 (2018).

[209X-351] McArdle, S., Yuan, X. & Benjamin, S. Error-mitigated digital quantum simulation. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **122**, 180501 (2019).

[210X-352] Huggins, W. J. et al. Virtual distillation for quantum error mitigation. *Phys. Rev. X* **11**, 041036 (2021).

[211X-353] Koczor, B. Exponential error suppression for near-term quantum devices. *Phys. Rev. X* **11**, 031057 (2021).

[212X-354] Liu, Z., Zhang, X., Fei, Y.-Y. & Cai, Z. Virtual Channel Purification. *PRX Quantum* **6**, 020325 (2025).

[213X-355] Li, Y. & Benjamin, S. C. Efficient variational quantum simulator incorporating active error minimization. *Phys. Rev. X* **7**, 021050 (2017).

[214X-356] Temme, K., Bravyi, S. & Gambetta, J. M. Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **119**, 180509 (2017).

[215X-357] McClean, J. R., Kimchi-Schwartz, M. E., Carter, J. & de Jong, W. A. Hybrid quantum-classical hierarchy for mitigation of decoherence and determination of excited states. *Phys. Rev. A* **95**, 042308 (2017).

[216X-358] Strikis, A., Qin, D., Chen, Y., Benjamin, S. C. & Li, Y. Learning-based quantum error mitigation. *PRX Quantum* **2**, 040330 (2021).

[217X-359] Czarnik, P., Arrasmith, A., Coles, P. J. & Cincio, L. Error mitigation with Clifford quantum-circuit data. *Quantum* **5**, 592 (2021).

[218X-360] Kim, C., Park, K. D. & Rhee, J.-K. Quantum error mitigation with artificial neural network. *IEEE Access* **8**, 188853-188860 (2020).

[219X-361] Gulania, S. et al. Quantum Time Dynamics Mediated by the Yang-Baxter Equation and Artificial Neural Networks. *J. Chem. Theory Comput.* **21**, 6280-6291 (2025).

[220X-362] Liao, H. et al. Machine learning for practical quantum error mitigation. *Nat. Mach. Intell.* **6**, 1478-1486 (2024).

[221X-363] Bennewitz, F. R., Hopfmueller, F., Kulchytskyy, B., Carrasquilla, J. & Ronagh, P. Neural error mitigation of near-term quantum simulations. *Nat. Mach. Intell.* **4**, 618-624 (2022).

[222X-364] Cai, Z. et al. Quantum error mitigation. *Rev. Mod. Phys.* **95**, 045005 (2023).

[223X-365] U.S. Department of Energy. National quantum information science research centers. https://nqisrc.org (2024).

[224X-366] EuroHPC Joint Undertaking. European high performance computing joint undertaking. https://eurohpc-ju.europa.eu/index_en (2024).

[225X-367] 367.0 ^367.1 ^367.2 ^367.3 ^367.4 ^367.5 The CUDA-Q development team. CUDA-Q (2024).

[226X-368] Beck, T. et al. Integrating quantum computing resources into scientific hpc ecosystems. *Future Gener. Comput. Syst.* **161**, 112212 (2024).

[227X-369] Kim, J.-S. Leverage ai coding assistants to develop quantum applications at scale with nvidia cuda-q. https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/leverage-ai-coding-assistants-to-develop-quantum-applications-at-scale-with-nvidia-cuda-q/ (2024).

[228X-370] Learn quantum computing with azure quantum. https://quantum.microsoft.com/en-us/tools/quantum-coding (2024).

[229X-371] Kharkov, Y., Mohammad, Z., Beach, M. & Kessler, E. Accelerate quantum software development on Amazon Braket with Claude-3. https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/quantum-computing/accelerate-quantum-software-development-on-amazon-braket-with-claude-3/ (2024).

[230X-372] Placidi, L. et al. Mnisq: A large-scale quantum circuit dataset for machine learning on/for quantum computers in the nisq era. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.16627 (2023).

[231X-373] Zwolak, J. P. et al. Data needs and challenges for quantum dot devices automation. *NPJ Quantum Inf.* **10**, 105 (2024).

[232X-374] Vishwakarma, S. et al. Qiskit HumanEval: An Evaluation Benchmark for Quantum Code Generative Models. In *2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE)*. 1169-1176 (IEEE, 2024).

[233X-375] Koopman, B. O. Hamiltonian systems and transformation in hilbert space. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA* **17**, 315-318 (1931).

[234X-376] Benioff, P. The computer as a physical system: A microscopic quantum mechanical Hamiltonian model of computers as represented by Turing machines. *J. Stat. Phys.* **22**, 563-591 (1980).

[235X-377] Benioff, P. Quantum mechanical hamiltonian models of turing machines. *J. Stat. Phys.* **29**, 515-546 (1982).

[236X-378] Feynman, R. P. Simulating physics with computers. *Int. J. Theor. Phys.* **21**, 467-488 (1982).

[237X-379] Breuer, H. & Petruccione, F. *The Theory of Open Quantum Systems* (Oxford University Press, 2002).

[238X-380] Vidal, G. Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **91**, 147902 (2003).

[239X-381] Gottesman, D. The heisenberg representation of quantum computers. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quantum-ph/9807006 (1998).

[240X-382] Aaronson, S. & Gottesman, D. Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits. *Phys. Rev.* **70**, 052328 (2004).

[241X-383] Bravyi, S. & Gosset, D. Improved classical simulation of quantum circuits dominated by clifford gates. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **116**, 250501 (2016).

[242X-384] Aharonov, D., Gao, X., Landau, Z., Liu, Y. & Vazirani, U. A polynomial-time classical algorithm for noisy random circuit sampling. In *Proceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing*, STOC '23 (ACM, 2023).

[243X-385] González-García, G., Cirac, J. I. & Trivedi, R. Pauli path simulations of noisy quantum circuits beyond average case. *Quantum* **9**, 1730 (2025).

[244X-386] van Straaten, B. et al. QArray: A GPU-accelerated constant capacitance model simulator for large quantum dot arrays. *SciPost Phys. Codebases* 35 (2024).

[245X-387] van Straaten, B. et al. Codebase release 1.3 for QArray. https://scipost.org/SciPostPhysCodeb.35-r1.3 (2024).

[246X-388] Bayraktar, H. et al. cuquantum sdk: A high-performance library for accelerating quantum science. In *2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE)*, **01**, 1050-1061 (2023).

[247X-389] Carrasquilla, J. & Melko, R. G. Machine learning phases of matter. *Nat. Phys.* **13**, 431-434 (2017).

[248X-390] Carleo, G. & Troyer, M. Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks. *Science* **355**, 602-606 (2017).

[249X-391] Lange, H., Van de Walle, A., Abedinnia, A. & Bohrdt, A. From architectures to applications: A review of neural quantum states. *Quantum Sci. Technol.* **9**, 040501 (2024).

[250X-392] Yang, T.-H., Soleimanifar, M., Bergamaschi, T. & Preskill, J. When can classical neural networks represent quantum states? Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.23152 (2024).

[251X-393] Bukov, M., Schmitt, M. & Dupont, M. Learning the ground state of a non-stoquastic quantum hamiltonian in a rugged neural network landscape. *SciPost Phys.* **10**, 147 (2021).

[252X-394] Han, C.-D., Glaz, B., Haile, M. & Lai, Y.-C. Tomography of time-dependent quantum hamiltonians with machine learning. *Phys. Rev. A* **104**, 062404 (2021).

[253X-395] Mohseni, N., Fösel, T., Guo, L., Navarrete-Benlloch, C. & Marquardt, F. Deep learning of quantum many-body dynamics via random driving. *Quantum* **6**, 714 (2022).

[254X-396] Shah, F. et al. Fourier neural operators for learning dynamics in quantum spin systems. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.03302 (2024).

[255X-397] Craig, D. L., Ares, N. & Gauger, E. M. Differentiable master equation solver for quantum device characterisation. *Phys. Rev. Res.* **6**, 043175 (2024).

[256X-398] Silver, D. et al. A general reinforcement learning algorithm that masters chess, shogi, and Go through self-play. *Science* **362**, 1140–1144 (2018).

[257X-399] 399.0 ^399.1 ^399.2 Fawzi, A. et al. Discovering faster matrix multiplication algorithms with reinforcement learning. *Nature* **610**, 47–53 (2022).

[258X-400] 400.0 ^400.1 ^400.2 Bengio, E., Jain, M., Korablyov, M., Precup, D. & Bengio, Y. Flow network based generative models for non-iterative diverse candidate generation. *Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst.* **34**, 27381–27394 (2021).

[259X-401] 401.0 ^401.1 ^401.2 Xiao, Y., Nazarian, S. & Bogdan, P. A stochastic quantum program synthesis framework based on bayesian optimization. *Sci. Rep.* **11**, 13138 (2021).

[260X-402] 402.0 ^402.1 ^402.2 Zhu, Y. & Yu, K. Artificial intelligence (ai) for quantum and quantum for ai. *Opt. Quantum Electron.* **55**, 697 (2023).

[261X-403] 403.0 ^403.1 ^403.2 Bang, J., Ryu, J., Yoo, S., Pawłowski, M. & Lee, J. A strategy for quantum algorithm design assisted by machine learning. *N. J. Phys.* **16**, 073017 (2014).

[262X-404] 404.0 ^404.1 ^404.2 Grimsley, H. R., Economou, S. E., Barnes, E. & Mayhall, N. J. An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer. *Nat. Commun.* **10**, 3007 (2019).

[263X-405] 405.0 ^405.1 ^405.2 Teske, J. D. et al. A machine learning approach for automated fine-tuning of semiconductor spin qubits. *Appl. Phys. Lett.* **114**, 133102 (2019).

[264X-406] 406.0 ^406.1 ^406.2 ^406.3 ^406.4 O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox. U-Net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2015, pages 234–241. Springer, 2015. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24574-4_28

[265X-407] 407.0 ^407.1 ^407.2 F. Fürrutter, G. Muñoz-Gil, and H. J. Briegel. Quantum circuit synthesis with diffusion models. Nat. Mach. Intell., 6:515–524, 2024. doi:10.1038/s42256-024-00823-3

[266X-408] D. Silver et al. Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature, 529:484–489, 2016. doi:10.1038/nature16961

[267X-409] 409.0 ^409.1 ^409.2 A. Fawzi et al. Discovering faster matrix multiplication algorithms with reinforcement learning. Nature, 610:47–53, 2022. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05172-4

[268X-410] 410.0 ^410.1 ^410.2 ^410.3 E. Bengio et al. Flow network based generative models for non-iterative diverse candidate generation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021. (No published DOI).

[269X-411] 411.0 ^411.1 ^411.2 ^411.3 F. Fürrutter, Z. Chandani, I. Hamamura, H. J. Briegel, and G. Muñoz-Gil. Synthesis of discrete-continuous quantum circuits with multimodal diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.01666, 2025. (No published DOI).

[271X-412] 412.0 ^412.1 ^412.2 ^412.3 T. Vidal, F. Roser, and M. Lewis. Quantum optimization for finance and logistics: benchmarking real-world feasibility. npj Quantum Inf., 11(27), 2025. doi:10.1038/s41534-025-00790-4

[272X-413] Artificial intelligence for quantum computing. Nature Communications, 2025. URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65836-3.

[273X-414] AI in Quantum Computing: Why NVIDIA-lead Researchers Say It's Key. The Quantum Insider, Dec 2025. URL https://thequantuminsider.com/2025/12/03/ai-is-emerging-as-quantum-computings-missing-ingredient-nvidia-led-research-team-asserts/.

[274X-415] Quantum Computing Industry Trends 2025: A Year of Breakthrough Milestones and Commercial Transition. SpinQ, Oct 2025. URL https://www.spinquanta.com/news-detail/quantum-computing-industry-trends-2025-breakthrough-milestones-commercial-transition.

[01Y-416] 416.0 ^416.1 ^416.2 T. Hey. Richard Feynman and computation. Contemporary Physics, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 257–265, 1999. doi:10.1080/001075199181549

[02Y-417] 417.0 ^417.1 ^417.2 J. Preskill. Quantum computing 40 years later. In Feynman Lectures on Computation, pp. 193–244, CRC Press, 2023. ISBN 9781003410027. doi:10.1201/9781003410027

[03Y-418] 418.0 ^418.1 V. Silva. Richard Feynman, demigod of physics, father of the quantum computer. In Quantum Computing by Practice: Python Programming in the Cloud with Qiskit and IBM-Q, pp. 49–85, Springer, 2023. doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-9991-3_3

[04Y-419] 419.0 ^419.1 ^419.2 Z. Yang, M. Zolanvari, and R. Jain. A survey of important issues in quantum computing and communications. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 2023. doi:10.1109/COMST.2023.3252240

[05Y-420] 420.0 ^420.1 M. Mikkelsen, J. Berezovsky, N. Stoltz, L. Coldren, and D. Awschalom. Optically detected coherent spin dynamics of a single electron in a quantum dot. Nature Physics, vol. 3, no. 11, pp. 770–773, 2007. doi:10.1038/nphys722

[06Y-421] 421.0 ^421.1 ^421.2 S. S. Gill, H. Wu, P. Patros, C. Ottaviani, P. Arora, V. C. Pujol, D. Haunschild, A. K. Parlikad, O. Cetinkaya, H. Lutfiyya, et al. Modern computing: Vision and challenges. Telematics and Informatics Reports, vol. 13, pp. 1–38, 2024. doi:10.1016/j.teler.2023.100116

[07Y-422] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang. Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press, 2010. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511976667

[08Y-423] S. Nadj-Perge, S. Frolov, E. Bakkers, and L. P. Kouwenhoven. Spin–orbit qubit in a semiconductor nanowire. Nature, vol. 468, no. 7327, pp. 1084–1087, 2010. doi:10.1038/nature09682

[09Y-424] N. Hendrickx, W. Lawrie, L. Petit, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and M. Veldhorst. A single-hole spin qubit. Nature communications, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 3478, 2020. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17211-7

[10Y-425] A. Vourdas. Quantum systems with finite Hilbert space. Reports on Progress in Physics, vol. 67, no. 3, p. 267, 2004. doi:10.1088/0034-4885/67/3/R02

[11Y-426] 426.0 ^426.1 ^426.2 A. Kumar et al. Securing the future internet of things with post-quantum cryptography. Security and Privacy, vol. 5, no. 2, p. e200, 2022. doi:10.1002/spy2.200

[12Y-427] 427.0 ^427.1 J. Preskill. Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond. Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018. doi:10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79

[13Y-428] J. Howard, A. Lidiak, C. Jameson, B. Basyildiz, K. Clark, T. Zhao, M. Bal, J. Long, D. P. Pappas, M. Singh, et al. Implementing two-qubit gates at the quantum speed limit. Physical Review Research, vol. 5, no. 4, p. 043194, 2023. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.043194

[14Y-429] M. AbuGhanem and H. Eleuch. Two-qubit entangling gates for superconducting quantum computers. Results in Physics, vol. 56, p. 107236, 2024. doi:10.1016/j.rinp.2024.107236

[15Y-430] 430.0 ^430.1 F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. Brandao, D. A. Buell, et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature, vol. 574, no. 7779, pp. 505–510, 2019. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5

[16Y-431] 431.0 ^431.1 A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’brien. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nature communications, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 4213, 2014. doi:10.1038/ncomms5213

[17Y-432] 432.0 ^432.1 A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta. Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets. nature, vol. 549, no. 7671, pp. 242–246, 2017. doi:10.1038/nature23879

[18Y-433] M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, et al. Variational quantum algorithms. Nature Reviews Physics, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 625–644, 2021. doi:10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9

[19Y-434] M. Singh et al. Quantum artificial intelligence for the science of climate change. In Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Blockchain in Quantum Satellite, Drone and Network, pp. 199–207, CRC Press, 2022. doi:10.1201/9781003201069-10

[20Y-435] A. D. Córcoles, A. Kandala, A. Javadi-Abhari, D. T. McClure, A. W. Cross, K. Temme, P. D. Nation, M. Steffen, and J. M. Gambetta. Challenges and opportunities of near-term quantum computing systems. Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 108, no. 8, pp. 1338–1352, 2019. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2019.2954005

[21Y-436] M. Krenn, J. Landgraf, T. Foesel, and F. Marquardt. Artificial intelligence and machine learning for quantum technologies. Physical Review A, vol. 107, no. 1, p. 010101, 2023. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.107.010101

[22Y-437] 437.0 ^437.1 ^437.2 J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd. Quantum machine learning. Nature, vol. 549, no. 7671, pp. 195–202, 2017. doi:10.1038/nature23474

[23Y-438] M. Mafu and M. Senekane. Design and implementation of efficient quantum support vector machine. In 2021 International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Energy Technologies (ICECET), pp. 1–4, IEEE, 2021. doi:10.1109/ICECET52533.2021.9698571

[24Y-439] P. Rebentrost, M. Mohseni, and S. Lloyd. Quantum support vector machine for big data classification. Physical review letters, vol. 113, no. 13, p. 130503, 2014. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.130503

[25Y-440] C. Ding, T.-Y. Bao, and H.-L. Huang. Quantum-inspired support vector machine. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 7210–7222, 2021. doi:10.1109/TNNLS.2021.3085004

[26Y-441] D. Browne and H. Briegel. One-way quantum computation. Quantum information: From foundations to quantum technology applications, pp. 449–473, 2016. doi:10.1002/9783527805785.ch21

[27Y-442] T. Albash and D. A. Lidar. Adiabatic quantum computation. Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 90, no. 1, p. 015002, 2018. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.90.015002

[28Y-443] A. Cross. The ibm q experience and qiskit open-source quantum computing software. In APS March meeting abstracts, vol. 2018, pp. L58–003, 2018. No DOI (abstract).

[29Y-444] B. Heim, M. Soeken, S. Marshall, C. Granade, M. Roetteler, A. Geller, M. Troyer, and K. Svore. Quantum programming languages. Nature Reviews Physics, vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 709–722, 2020. doi:10.1038/s42254-020-00255-7

[30Y-445] V. Bergholm, J. Izaac, M. Schuld, C. Gogolin, S. Ahmed, V. Ajith, M. S. Alam, G. Alonso-Linaje, B. AkashNarayanan, A. Asadi, et al. Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.04968, 2018. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1811.04968

[31Y-446] S. S. Gill. Quantum and blockchain based serverless edge computing: A vision, model, new trends and future directions. Internet Technology Letters, p. e275, 2021. doi:10.1002/itl2.275

[32Y-447] 447.0 ^447.1 D. R. Simon. On the power of quantum computation. SIAM journal on computing, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1474–1483, 1997. doi:10.1137/S0097539796298637

[33Y-448] 448.0 ^448.1 ^448.2 E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1411.4028

[34Y-449] 449.0 ^449.1 C. P. Williams. Quantum Gates. pp. 51–122. London: Springer London, 2011. doi:10.1007/978-1-84882-775-2_4

[35Y-450] 450.0 ^450.1 W. Du, B. Li, and Y. Tian. Quantum annealing algorithms: State of the art. Jisuanji Yanjiu yu Fazhan/Computer Research and Development, vol. 45, no. 9, p. 1501 – 1508, 2008. No DOI.

[36Y-451] M. De Stefano, F. Pecorelli, D. Di Nucci, F. Palomba, and A. De Lucia. Software engineering for quantum programming: How far are we?. Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 190, p. 111326, 2022. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2022.111326

[37Y-452] M. A. Serrano, J. A. Cruz-Lemus, R. Perez-Castillo, and M. Piattini. Quantum software components and platforms: Overview and quality assessment. ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 1–31, 2022. doi:10.1145/3558814

[38Y-453] R. Pérez-Castillo, M. A. Serrano, and M. Piattini. Software modernization to embrace quantum technology. Advances in Engineering Software, vol. 151, p. 102933, 2021. doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2020.102933

[39Y-454] D. Vietz, J. Barzen, F. Leymann, and K. Wild. On decision support for quantum application developers: categorization, comparison, and analysis of existing technologies. In International Conference on Computational Science, pp. 127–141, Springer, 2021. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-77964-1_10

[40Y-455] M. Aramon, G. Rosenberg, E. Valiante, T. Miyazawa, H. Tamura, and H. G. Katzgraber. Physics-inspired optimization for quadratic unconstrained problems using a digital annealer. Frontiers in Physics, vol. 7, no. APR, 2019. doi:10.3389/fphy.2019.00048

[41Y-456] A. Singh, K. Dev, H. Siljak, H. D. Joshi, and M. Magarini. Quantum internet—applications, functionalities, enabling technologies, challenges, and research directions. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 2218–2247, 2021. doi:10.1109/COMST.2021.3114075

[42Y-457] 457.0 ^457.1 P. W. Shor. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM review, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 303–332, 1999. doi:10.1137/S0036144598347011

[43Y-458] S. Pirandola, L. Andersen, U., L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ottaviani, J. L. Pereira, M. Razavi, J. Shamsul Shaari, M. Tomamichel, V. C. Usenko, G. Vallone, P. Villoresi, and W. P. Advances in quantum cryptography. Advances in Optics and Photonics, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1012–1236, 2020. doi:10.1364/AOP.361502

[44Y-459] S. Pirandola and S. L. Braunstein. Physics: Unite to build a quantum internet. Nature, vol. 532, no. 7598, pp. 169–171, 2016. doi:10.1038/532169a

[45Y-460] G. Zhang, J. Y. Haw, H. Cai, F. Xu, S. Assad, J. F. Fitzsimons, X. Zhou, Y. Zhang, S. Yu, J. Wu, et al. An integrated silicon photonic chip platform for continuous-variable quantum key distribution. Nature Photonics, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 839–842, 2019. doi:10.1038/s41566-019-0504-5

[46Y-461] T. Matsuura, K. Maeda, T. Sasaki, and M. Koashi. Finite-size security of continuous-variable quantum key distribution with digital signal processing. Nature communications, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 252, 2021. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19916-2

[47Y-462] P. James. The concept of transition in quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 23–33, 1970. doi:10.1007/BF00708652

[48Y-463] W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek. A single quantum cannot be cloned. Nature, vol. 299, no. 5886, p. 802–803, 1982. doi:10.1038/299802a0

[49Y-464] C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard. Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing, vol. 175, p. 8, 1984. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-374514-9.00010-4 (for book version; original conference no DOI).

[50Y-465] C. H. Bennett. Quantum cryptography using any two nonorthogonal states. Physical review letters, vol. 68, pp. 3121–3124, May 1992. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.3121

[51Y-466] C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, and N. D. Mermin. Quantum cryptography without bell’s theorem. Physical review letters, vol. 68, pp. 557–559, Feb 1992. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.557

[52Y-467] F. Grosshans and P. Grangier. Continuous variable quantum cryptography using coherent states. Physical review letters, vol. 88, p. 057902, Jan 2002. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.057902

[53Y-468] S. Pirandola, S. Mancini, S. Lloyd, and S. L. Braunstein. Continuous-variable quantum cryptography using two-way quantum communication. Nature Physics, vol. 4, pp. 726–730, 9 2006. doi:10.1038/nphys1018

[54Y-469] C. Ottaviani and S. Pirandola. General immunity and superadditivity of two-way gaussian quantum cryptography. Scientific Reports, vol. 6, p. 22225, 2016. doi:10.1038/srep22225

[55Y-470] A. K. Ekert. Quantum cryptography based on bell’s theorem. Physical review letters, vol. 67, pp. 661–663, 1991. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.661

[56Y-471] W. Zhang, T. van Leent, K. Redeker, R. Garthoff, R. Schwonnek, F. Fertig, S. Eppelt, W. Rosenfeld, V. Scarani, C. C.-W. Lim, et al. A device-independent quantum key distribution system for distant users. Nature, vol. 607, no. 7920, pp. 687–691, 2022. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04891-y

[57Y-472] V. Zapatero, T. van Leent, R. Arnon-Friedman, W.-Z. Liu, Q. Zhang, H. Weinfurter, and M. Curty. Advances in device-independent quantum key distribution. npj quantum information, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 10, 2023. doi:10.1038/s41534-023-00684-w

[58Y-473] S. L. Braunstein and S. Pirandola. Side-channel-free quantum key distribution. Physical review letters, vol. 108, p. 130502, 2012. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.130502

[59Y-474] H.-K. Lo, M. Curty, and B. Qi. Measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution. Physical review letters, vol. 108, p. 130503, 2012. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.130503

[60Y-475] S. Pirandola, C. Ottaviani, G. Spedalieri, C. Weedbrook, S. L. Braunstein, S. Lloyd, T. Gehring, C. S. Jacobsen, and U. L. Andersen. High-rate quantum cryptography in untrusted networks. Nature Photonics, vol. 9, p. 397–402, 2015. doi:10.1038/nphoton.2015.83

[61Y-476] M. Lucamarini, Z. L. Yuan, J. F. Dynes, and A. J. Shields. Overcoming the rate-distance limit of quantum key distribution without quantum repeaters. Nature, vol. 557, pp. 400–403, 2018. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0066-6

[62Y-477] S. Pirandola, R. Laurenza, C. Ottaviani, and L. Banchi. Fundamental limits of repeaterless quantum communications. Nature communications, vol. 8, p. 15043, 2017. doi:10.1038/ncomms15043

[63Y-478] S. Pirandola. End-to-end capacities of a quantum communication network. Communications Physics, vol. 2, p. 51, 2019. doi:10.1038/s42005-019-0146-1

[64Y-479] D. J. Bernstein and T. Lange. Post-quantum cryptography. Nature, vol. 549, no. 7671, pp. 188–194, 2017. doi:10.1038/nature23461

[65Y-480] NIST. Nist post-quantum cryprography standardisation. 2024. URL https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/post-quantum-cryptography/round-4-submissions. (No DOI, website).

[66Y-481] M. D. Reed, L. DiCarlo, S. E. Nigg, L. Sun, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf. Realization of three-qubit quantum error correction with superconducting circuits. Nature, vol. 482, no. 7385, pp. 382–385, 2012. doi:10.1038/nature10786

[67Y-482] E. Pednault, J. A. Gunnels, G. Nannicini, L. Horesh, and R. Wisnieff. Leveraging secondary storage to simulate deep 54-qubit sycamore circuits. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.09534, 2019. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1910.09534

[68Y-483] N. P. De Leon, K. M. Itoh, D. Kim, K. K. Mehta, T. E. Northup, H. Paik, B. Palmer, N. Samarth, S. Sangtawesin, and D. W. Steuerman. Materials challenges and opportunities for quantum computing hardware. Science, vol. 372, no. 6539, p. eabb2823, 2021. doi:10.1126/science.abb2823

[69Y-484] A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller. Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation. Nature, vol. 607, no. 7920, pp. 667–676, 2022. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04940-7

[70Y-485] S. Biswas and P. Das. Analysis of quantum cryptology and the RSA algorithms defense against attacks using shor’s algorithm in a post quantum environment. In International Conference on Computational Intelligence in Communications and Business Analytics, pp. 72–87, Springer, 2023. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-48676-0_6

[71Y-486] 486.0 ^486.1 L. K. Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pp. 212–219, 1996. doi:10.1145/237814.237866

[72Y-487] S. S. Gill, A. Kumar, H. Singh, M. Singh, K. Kaur, M. Usman, and R. Buyya. Quantum computing: A taxonomy, systematic review and future directions. Software: Practice and Experience, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 66–114, 2022. doi:10.1002/spe.3030

[73Y-488] M. Sisodia. Comparison the performance of five-qubit IBM quantum computers in terms of bell states preparation. Quantum Information Processing, vol. 19, no. 8, p. 215, 2020. doi:10.1007/s11128-020-02703-2

[74Y-489] M. Piattini, M. Serrano, R. Perez-Castillo, G. Petersen, and J. L. Hevia. Toward a quantum software engineering. IT Professional, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 62–66, 2021. doi:10.1109/MITP.2020.3019522

[75Y-490] A. Kumar et al. Quantum and Blockchain for Modern Computing Systems: Vision and Advancements. Springer, 2022. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-04613-1

[76Y-491] T. Subramanian et al. Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Blockchain in Quantum Satellite, Drone and Network. CRC Press, 2022. ISBN 9781003201069. doi:10.1201/9781003201069

[77Y-492] S. S. Gill, M. Xu, C. Ottaviani, P. Patros, R. Bahsoon, A. Shaghaghi, M. Golec, V. Stankovski, H. Wu, A. Abraham, et al. AI for next generation computing: Emerging trends and future directions. Internet of Things, vol. 19, p. 100514, 2022. doi:10.1016/j.iot.2022.100514

[78Y-493] G. K. Walia et al. AI-empowered fog/edge resource management for IoT applications: A comprehensive review, research challenges and future perspectives. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 2023. doi:10.1109/COMST.2023.3337955

[79Y-494] A. Avizienis, J.-C. Laprie, B. Randell, and C. Landwehr. Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 11 – 33, 2004. doi:10.1109/TDSC.2004.2

[80Y-495] A. Paler and S. J. Devitt. An introduction into fault-tolerant quantum computing. In 2015 52nd ACM/EDAC/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), pp. 1–6, 2015. doi:10.1145/2744769.2744838

[81Y-496] R. Singh et al. Edge AI: a survey. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems, vol. 3, pp. 71–92, 2023. doi:10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.05.004

[82Y-497] S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson. Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead. Science, vol. 362, no. 6412, p. eaam9288, 2018. doi:10.1126/science.aam9288

[83Y-498] Quantum Computing: Vision and Challenges. arXiv:2403.02240, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.02240.

[84Y-499] 2025: The year to become Quantum-Ready. Microsoft Azure Quantum Blog, Jan 2025. URL https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/quantum/2025/01/14/2025-the-year-to-become-quantum-ready/.

[85Y-500] The Year of Quantum: From concept to reality in 2025. McKinsey, Jun 2025. URL https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/tech-and-ai/our-insights/the-year-of-quantum-from-concept-to-reality-in-2025.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

[85]

[86]

[87]

[88]

[89]

[90]

[91]

[92]

[93]

[94]

[95]

[96]

[97]

[98]

[99]

[100]

Anonymous

Search

Physics:Quantum Computing Algorithms in the NISQ Era