An Optimized Nearest Neighbor Compliant

Quantum Circuit for 5-qubit Code

Arijit Mondal and Keshab K. Parhi, Fellow, IEEE
Email: {monda109, parhi}@umn.edu
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Minnesota

Abstract—The five-qubit quantum error correcting code en- gates. For practical circuit realization, it is often useful to
codes one logical qubit to five physical qubits, and protects the design a circuit using a single type of 2-qubit gate. Also, the
code from a single error. It was one of the first quantum codes circuits proposed after systematic design in [6] can be further
arXiv:2410.06375v1 [quant-ph] 8 Oct 2024

to be invented, and various encoding circuits have been proposed

for it. In this paper, we propose a systematic procedure for optimized in terms of the number of gates. For a review of
optimization of encoder circuits for stabilizer codes. We start quantum error correction using stabilizer codes, the reader is
with the systematic construction of an encoder for a five-qubit referred to [15].
code, and optimize the circuit in terms of the number of quantum CNOT gates along with other single-qubit Pauli gates form
gates. Our method is also applicable to larger stabilizer codes. a universal set of gates, i.e., they can be used to generate any
We further propose nearest neighbor compliant (NNC) circuits
for the proposed encoder using a single swap gate, as compared arbitrary unitary transformation for a n-qubit system. A set of
to three swap gates in a prior design. equivalencies exist between quantum gates, similar to classical
Index Terms—Quantum ECCs, Quantum computation, CSS digital gates. Such equivalencies were used to study quantum
framework, five-qubit code, Stabilizer codes, Encoders and de- circuits in [16], [17], [18], [19]. These rules, along with some
coders new formulated rules were compiled into a set of equivalence
rules in [20]. To enhance circuit reliability, it is necessary
I. I NTRODUCTION to optimize the quantum circuits in terms of the number of
Quantum computing has the potential to revolutionize the CNOT gates. Following the works in [21], [22], the authors in
state-of-the-art computing and communications technologies. [23] studied the one-to-one correspondence between n-qubit
Some prior advances in quantum computing include: Shor’s systems consisting of CNOT gates and n × n non-singular
factorization [1] and Grover’s search algorithm [2]. Realiza- matrices with coefficients in F2 , in a formal way using group
tions of these algorithms in real life require large quantum isomorphism and group representation. Using this approach,
computers. Although current quantum computers are not large they proposed an algorithm to optimize a system of n qubits,
enough to solve practical problems, we can expect such with CNOT gates interacting between them.
computers to be available in near future. However, packing Various quantum technologies offer different degrees of
a large number of qubits leads to more errors due to noise freedom in terms of interaction between qubits [24], [25],
and decoherence. Thus, we need mechanisms that can be [26], [27]. Non adjacent qubit interactions are heavily prone
coupled with quantum computers to mitigate errors introduced to noise. Many of the fault-tolerant technologies thus rely on
by noise. the nearest neighbor compliance, where the interacting qubits
Quantum error correction was believed to be impossible till need to be adjacent to each other before they can interact
Shor proposed a 9-qubit code with the ability to correct a via 2-qubit gates. Various techniques have been proposed in
single quantum error of any type [3]. Calderbank, Shor, and the past to design 1-D and 2-D architectures that are nearest
Steane proposed a method, referred to as CSS framework, to neighbor compliant (NNC) [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33],
import the vast literature of classical error correction codes [34], [35], [36].
(ECC) to construct new quantum ECCs [4], [5]. Subsequently, For both 1-D and 2-D quantum architectures, swap gates are
Gottesman developed a stabilizer framework for quantum used to move qubits adjacent to each other before performing
ECCs which became widely popular [6]. Entanglement as- an operation between them. A swap gate can be realized
sisted (EA) stabilizer codes were proposed in [7], leading by 3 CNOT gates. Irrespective of the quantum technology
to further increase in the error correction ability [8]. Subse- or quantum architecture used, minimizing the number of
quently, classical ECCs like low-density parity-check (LDPC), swap gates is of prime importance towards design of effi-
polar codes, and Reed-Solomon (RS) codes were constructed cient quantum circuits. Approaches towards getting the lowest
in the quantum domain [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. number of swap gates for a quantum circuit were studied in
Encoding and decoding circuits for qubit stabilizer codes [35], [37], [38]. Quantum ECC circuits should be designed
were proposed by Gottesman [6]. An approach towards en- subject to NNC constraint. This is extremely important for
coder design that was applicable to qudits was presented in fault-tolerant computing. Without NNC constraint, the error
[14]. These circuits used different types of 2-qubit gates, such correcting circuits will be prone to noise and errors, and may
as CNOT, CY, and CZ gates along with single qubit Pauli introduce new errors while correcting the existing ones.
 The five-qubit code is the smallest quantum ECC which |0i H Z Z Z
can correct a single qubit error [39], [40]. Gottesman [6] |0i H Z
studied the 5-qubit code using stabilizer formalism. Authors
|0i H Z
in [41] experimentally verified a five-qubit code encoder using
six 2-qubit gates and twelve single qubit gates. They derived |0i H Z
the circuit through manual search, but further details were |ψi Z X X X Z X
not provided. We believe that the manual search may imply
searching for optimal circuit among clifford group elements for Fig. 1. Encoder for the five-qubit code using CNOT and CZ as 2-qubit gates
5 qubits [42]. However, such a method may not be possible [6], [15].
for larger quantum ECCs since the size of the clifford group
increases significantly. In this paper our goal is to design an
optimal circuit in a systematic way starting from the circuit in circuit for the encoder. Interested readers are referred to [6],
[6]. [15] for more details.
The contributions of this paper are as follows. First, we III. O PTIMIZATION OF THE ENCODER CIRCUIT
design a 5-qubit encoder circuits using only CNOT gates and
Hadamard gates, H. Second, we propose a systematic method We observe from Fig. 1 that the circuit requires 4 H gates,
to optimize encoder circuit for stabilizer codes in terms of the 2 Z gates, 6 CZ gates and 4 CNOT gates 1 . 2-qubit gates are
number of 2-qubit gates. Third, for a two-dimensional (2-D) more noisy than single qubit gates. To mitigate noise, our goal
qubit configuration, our optimized encoder requires only one is to optimize the circuit in terms of the number of gates. Also,
swap gate for nearest neighbor compliance compared to the for practical implementations, it is often necessary to design
initial circuit [6] which requires 3 swap gates. the circuit using one type of 2-qubit gate. Thus, our objective
is to design a circuit which contains only CNOT gates and
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section
single-qubit Pauli gates.
II, we give a brief theoretical background followed by the
systematic construction of the encoder. In Section III, we A. Optimization using equivalence rules
provide details of the optimization of the encoder circuit. We
In [20], the authors discuss a set of equivalence rules related
provide NNC circuits for the encoder in Section IV, followed
to quantum circuits. These were compiled into a list of 10
by results in Section V.
equivalence rules in [44]. We do not include the figure due to
lack of space. The reader is referred to Fig. 5 in [44]. Rule
II. T HEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND ENCODER DESIGN
1 allows the conversion of X gate to Z gate and vice versa.
FOR 5- QUBIT CODE
Similarly, Rule 3 facilitates the conversion between CNOT
A set of qubits which evolve through a sequence of unitary and CZ gates. Rule 2 implies that the target and control can be
operations constitute a quantum circuit. The unitary operations interchanged for CZ gates. For CNOT gates, control and target
are represented by quantum gates. The single qubit gates can be switched with additional H gates as shown in Rule 7.
include: bit flip gate X, phase flip gate Z, Hadamard gate H, Rule 4 shows that a |0⟩ at the control of a CNOT gate leads
Y gate, and the phase gate S. The multi-qubit gates include: to no change in the output state. Similarly, a |+⟩ at the target
controlled-X (CNOT), controlled-Z (CZ), controlled-Y gates, of a CNOT gate leaves the output state unaltered as shown in
and the CCNOT (Toffoli gate). For matrix representations of Rule 5. Rule 9 shows that CNOT gates commute if they share
the gates and further reading on quantum circuits, the reader common controls or targets. When CNOT gates don’t share
is referred to [43]. controls or target, Rule 6 becomes helpful. Rule 8 becomes
The five-qubit code can correct a single qubit error [39], particularly useful when there is a CNOT gate between two
[40]. Gottesman [6] studied the 5-qubit code using the stabi- non-adjacent qubits. A third qubit which is adjacent to both
lizer formalism. The stabilizers M1 − M4 and logical X̄ and the qubits is used as an intermediate qubit for the operation.
Z̄ operators for a 5-qubit ECC are shown below: Rule 10 is a consequence of Rule 8.

M1 X Z Z X I B. Optimization using matrix equivalence

M2 I X Z Z X A one-to-one correspondence between n-qubit CNOT cir-
M3 X I X Z Z cuits and n×n non-singular matrices was formally described in
M4 Z X I X Z [23]. Let us consider a n-qubit circuit consisting of only CNOT
X̄ X X X X X gates. We can represent the initial state as a n × n identity
Z̄ Z Z Z Z Z matrix. Each CNOT gate then represents an elementary row
Using Gottesman’s method [6], an algorithm for designing transformation. For example, a CNOT gate with control on
an encoding circuit was presented in [44]. Using the algorithm, qubit n1 and target at qubit n2 can be represented by the
the encoding circuit for the 5-qubit code is shown in Fig. 1 It should be noted that if CY gates are also used, a total of 8 2-qubit
1. We don’t go into the details of this procedure since our gates are required. However, a CY gate is equivalent to two gates, as it is a
contribution is towards the optimization and developing NNC combination of CNOT and CZ gate
elementary row transformation Rn2 → Rn1 + Rn2 . Thus, introduces two H gates when converted to CNOT gates. The
the circuit can be represented by a series of elementary row same is true for Z gates. However, two H gates are also
transformations. We will illustrate this using an example. annihilated in the process, leaving the count of H gates the
Let us consider rule 10 (Fig. 5 in [44]). The first circuit same. The resulting circuit after the gate conversions is shown
can be represented by the elementary row transformations in Fig. 3.
R2 → R2 + R1 and R3 → R3 + R1 as shown below.
     
1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 |0i X X H
 0 1 0 → 1 1 0 → 1 1 0 
0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 |0i H
|0i X X H
The second circuit can be represented by the elementary
row transformations R3 → R3 + R2 , R2 → R2 + R1 and |0i X X X X H
R3 → R3 + R2 as shown below. |ψi X X X X

       
1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Fig. 3. Resulting encoder circuit after removing redundant H gates.
 0 1 0 → 0 1 0 → 1 1 0 → 1 1 0 
0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1
We observe that the final matrix in both the cases are Using Rule 6, i.e., CNOT mirroring, the shaded green region
the same, and thus the circuits are equivalent. As men- in Fig. 3 can be reduced from 3 CNOT gates to 2 CNOT
tioned before, the authors in [23] observed that for a n-qubit gates. Also, the two X gates on the first and fourth qubits can
quantum circuit consisting of only CNOT gates, the input- be removed by initializing those qubits to |1⟩. The resulting
output transformation of states can be represented by a series circuit is shown in Fig. 4.
of elementary row transformations. Let the matrix obtained
through the series of row transformations be Tn . Applying a
Gaussian elimination method to the Tn results in the identity |1i X H
matrix. If we apply those Gaussian elimination steps in reverse
to the identity matrix, it results in Tn . These steps lead to an |0i H
equivalent circuit that can be used as a starting point. However, |0i X X H
this method may not always lead to an optimum circuit [23].
Our goal is to find the minimum number of elementary row |1i X X H
transformations which takes the identity matrix to the matrix |ψi X X X X
Tn . Finding an optimal solution is known to be difficult, and
the complexity scales exponentially with the number of qubits Fig. 4. Resulting encoder circuit after using rule 6 to the shaded region in
involved. Fig. 3

C. Optimization of the 5-qubit encoder circuit

The encoder circuit for the 5-qubit code using CNOT and
After slight rearrangement of the circuit in Fig. 4, we obtain
CZ gates as two-qubit gates is shown in Fig. 1. Our first step
the circuit in Fig. 5.
would be to convert the Z and CZ gates to X and CNOT
gates, respectively, such that there is only one type of two-
qubit gate in the circuit. However, applying this to the circuit |1i X H
in Fig. 1 leads to an increase in the number of H gates. To
solve this issue, we first swap control and target for all the CZ |0i H
gates as shown in Fig. 2. |0i X X H
|0i H Z Z |1i X X H
|0i H |ψi X X X X
|0i H Z Z
|0i H Z Z Z Z Fig. 5. Resulting encoder circuit after rearranging the circuit in Fig. 4
|ψi X X X X

Fig. 2. Swapping control and targets for the CZ gates in the encoder in Fig.
1. The green shaded region in Fig. 5 can be reduced from 3
CNOT gates to 2 CNOT gates using Rule 6, resulting in the
For the next step, we convert the Z and CZ gates to X final optimized circuit as shown in Fig. 6. This circuit requires
and CNOT gates, respectively, using Rule 3. Each CZ gate 8 CNOT gates and 4 H gates.
 TABLE I
R ESOURCE UTILIZATION SUMMARY FOR THE VARIOUS DESIGNED
QUANTUM CIRCUITS IN TERMS OF NUMBER OF GATES USED .

Parameters Initial Initial Optmized Five- 5-qubit

five five- 5-qubit qubit encoder
qubit qubit encoder NNC ([41]
encoder encoder circuit
NNC
circuit

Fig. 7. 2-D array of qubits (represented by black dots). H gate 4 4 4 4 4

Z gate 2 2 0 0 2
|ψai |ψbi |ψai X |ψbi S gate 0 0 0 0 3
S† gate 0 0 0 0 3
|ψbi |ψai |ψbi X X |ψai CNOT 4 13 8 11 6
CZ 6 6 0 0 0
Fig. 8. Symbol of a swap gate (left). A swap gate circuit implemented using
3 CNOT gates (right).

such a way that the number of swap gates is minimized. A

|1i swap gate is shown in Fig. 8.
X H
We designed an NNC circuit for the 5-qubit encoder in Fig.
|0i H 1. From analyzing the circuit, we observe that 3 swap gates are
required to design a NNC circuit for a 2-D qubit configuration
|0i X X H as shown in Fig 9 (a). However, the proposed optimized circuit
|1i X H in Fig. 6 requires only 1 swap gate for the qubit configuration
shown in Fig. 9 (b).
|ψi X X X X
V. R ESULTS
Fig. 6. Final optimized encoder circuit for the five-qubit code. The encoder circuit was simulated and verified using IBM
Qiskit. A table containing the resource utilization in terms of
IV. N EAREST NEIGHBOR COMPLIANT ENCODER CIRCUIT the number of gates is shown in Table I. We observe that,
FOR THE 5- QUBIT CODE compared to the initial encoder circuit, the optimized circuit
requires 4 less gates. Also, the NNC circuit for the optimized
Let us consider a 2-D array of qubits as shown in Fig. 7. encoder requires only 1 swap gate, leading to a saving of 6
The qubits at the corners and edges can interact with 2 or 3 CNOT gates. The circuit in [41] requires 6 CNOT gates and
qubits, while the rest of the qubits can interact with their 4 12 single qubit gates.
closest neighbors. To design a circuit which is nearest neighbor
compliant, we need to use swap gates to bring the qubits VI. C ONCLUSIONS
adjacent to each other [38]. It should be noted that the qubits We present an optimized 5-qubit encoder circuit using 8
are not moved physically. Their states are swapped which is CNOT gates and 4 H gates. It uses only one type of 2-qubit
equivalent to moving them to adjacent positions without doing gate, i.e., the CNOT gates, which is more useful for practical
it physically. A swap gate requires 3 CNOT gates. Thus, it is applications. Further, it uses less number of 2-qubit gates, and
important to position the qubits and perform the operations in is thus less prone to noise.

1 5 3 2 5 4
4 2 3 1

|0i 1 |1i 1
H Z Z Z X H
|0i 2 H Z |0i 2
H
|0i 3 |0i 3
H Z X X X H
|0i 4 H Z |1i4 X H
|ψi 5 Z X X X Z |ψi5 X X X X
(a) (b)

Fig. 9. (a) NNC circuit for the 5-qubit encoder without optimization, requiring 3 swap gates. (b) NNC circuit for the optimized 5-qubit encoder requiring 1
swap gate.
 R EFERENCES [25] W. Liu, H. Xu, F. Su, Z. Li, Y. Tian, S. Han, and S. Zhao, “Coupled
superconducting qudit-resonator system: Energy spectrum, state popu-
[1] P. W. Shor, “Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms lation, and state transition under microwave drive,” Physical Review B,
and factoring,” in Proceedings 35th annual symposium on foundations vol. 97, no. 9, p. 094513, 2018.
of computer science. IEEE, 1994, pp. 124–134. [26] A. Klimov, R. Guzmán, J. Retamal, and C. Saavedra, “Qutrit quantum
[2] L. K. Grover, “A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database computer with trapped ions,” Physical Review A, vol. 67, no. 6, p.
search,” in Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium 062313, 2003.
on Theory of computing, 1996, pp. 212–219. [27] R. Leon, C. H. Yang, J. Hwang, J. C. Lemyre, T. Tanttu, W. Huang,
[3] P. W. Shor, “Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer K. W. Chan, K. Tan, F. Hudson, K. Itoh et al., “Coherent spin
memory,” Physical review A, vol. 52, no. 4, p. R2493, 1995. control of s-, p-, d-and f-electrons in a silicon quantum dot,” Nature
[4] A. R. Calderbank and P. W. Shor, “Good quantum error-correcting codes communications, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 797, 2020.
exist,” Physical Review A, vol. 54, no. 2, p. 1098, 1996. [28] M. Saeedi, R. Wille, and R. Drechsler, “Synthesis of quantum circuits for
[5] A. Steane, “Multiple-particle interference and quantum error correction,” linear nearest neighbor architectures,” Quantum Information Processing,
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, vol. 10, pp. 355–377, 2011.
Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 452, no. 1954, pp. 2551–2577, [29] A. Chakrabarti, S. Sur-Kolay, and A. Chaudhury, “Linear nearest neigh-
1996. bor synthesis of reversible circuits by graph partitioning,” arXiv preprint
[6] D. Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction. Califor- arXiv:1112.0564, 2011.
nia Institute of Technology, 1997. [30] A. Matsuo and S. Yamashita, “Changing the gate order for optimal lnn
conversion,” in Reversible Computation: Third International Workshop,
[7] T. Brun, I. Devetak, and M.-H. Hsieh, “Correcting quantum errors with
RC 2011, Gent, Belgium, July 4-5, 2011. Revised Papers 3. Springer,
entanglement,” science, vol. 314, no. 5798, pp. 436–439, 2006.
2012, pp. 89–101.
[8] C.-Y. Lai and T. A. Brun, “Entanglement increases the error-correcting
[31] A. Shafaei, M. Saeedi, and M. Pedram, “Optimization of quantum
ability of quantum error-correcting codes,” Physical Review A, vol. 88,
circuits for interaction distance in linear nearest neighbor architectures,”
no. 1, p. 012320, 2013.
in Proceedings of the 50th annual design automation conference, 2013,
[9] M.-H. Hsieh, T. A. Brun, and I. Devetak, “Entanglement-assisted quan- pp. 1–6.
tum quasicyclic low-density parity-check codes,” Physical Review A, [32] I. L. Markov and M. Saeedi, “Constant-optimized quantum circuits for
vol. 79, no. 3, p. 032340, 2009. modular multiplication and exponentiation,” Quantum Info. Comput.,
[10] F. Dupuis, A. Goswami, M. Mhalla, and V. Savin, “Purely quantum polar 2012.
codes,” in 2019 IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW). IEEE, 2019, [33] P. Pham and K. M. Svore, “A 2D nearest-neighbor quantum architecture
pp. 1–5. for factoring in polylogarithmic depth.” Quantum Inf. Comput., vol. 13,
[11] M. Grassl, W. Geiselmann, and T. Beth, “Quantum Reed Solomon no. 11-12, pp. 937–962, 2013.
codes,” in Applied Algebra, Algebraic Algorithms and Error-Correcting [34] R. R. Shrivastwa, K. Datta, and I. Sengupta, “Fast qubit placement
Codes: 13th International Symposium, AAECC-13 Honolulu, Hawaii, in 2D architecture using nearest neighbor realization,” in 2015 ieee
USA, November 15–19, 1999 Proceedings 13. Springer, 1999, pp. international symposium on nanoelectronic and information systems.
231–244. IEEE, 2015, pp. 95–100.
[12] S. A. Aly, “Asymmetric quantum BCH codes,” in 2008 International [35] M. G. Alfailakawi, I. Ahmad, and S. Hamdan, “Harmony-search al-
Conference on Computer Engineering & Systems. IEEE, 2008, pp. gorithm for 2d nearest neighbor quantum circuits realization,” Expert
157–162. Systems with Applications, vol. 61, pp. 16–27, 2016.
[13] G. G. La Guardia, “Asymmetric quantum Reed-Solomon and generalized [36] C.-C. Lin, S. Sur-Kolay, and N. K. Jha, “Paqcs: Physical design-aware
Reed-Solomon codes,” Quantum Information Processing, vol. 11, pp. fault-tolerant quantum circuit synthesis,” IEEE Transactions on Very
591–604, 2012. Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 1221–1234,
[14] M. Grassl, M. Rötteler, and T. Beth, “Efficient quantum circuits for 2014.
non-qubit quantum error-correcting codes,” International Journal of [37] A. Lye, R. Wille, and R. Drechsler, “Determining the minimal number of
Foundations of Computer Science, vol. 14, no. 05, pp. 757–775, 2003. swap gates for multi-dimensional nearest neighbor quantum circuits,” in
[15] A. Mondal and K. K. Parhi, “Quantum circuits for stabilizer error The 20th Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference. IEEE,
correcting codes: A tutorial,” IEEE Circuits and Systems Magazine, 2015, pp. 178–183.
vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 33–51, 2024. [38] J. Ding and S. Yamashita, “Exact synthesis of nearest neighbor compli-
[16] X. Zhou, D. W. Leung, and I. L. Chuang, “Methodology for quantum ant quantum circuits in 2-d architecture and its application to large-scale
logic gate construction,” Physical Review A, vol. 62, no. 5, p. 052316, circuits,” IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated
2000. Circuits and Systems, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 1045–1058, 2019.
[17] N. D. Mermin, “From classical state swapping to quantum teleportation,” [39] C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters,
Physical Review A, vol. 65, no. 1, p. 012320, 2001. “Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction,” Physical
[18] ——, “Deconstructing dense coding,” Physical Review A, vol. 66, no. 3, Review A, vol. 54, no. 5, p. 3824, 1996.
p. 032308, 2002. [40] R. Laflamme, C. Miquel, J. P. Paz, and W. H. Zurek, “Perfect quantum
[19] D. Maslov, G. W. Dueck, D. M. Miller, and C. Negrevergne, “Quantum error correcting code,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 77, no. 1, p. 198,
circuit simplification and level compaction,” IEEE Transactions on 1996.
Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, vol. 27, [41] M. Gong, X. Yuan, S. Wang, Y. Wu, Y. Zhao, C. Zha, S. Li, Z. Zhang,
no. 3, pp. 436–444, 2008. Q. Zhao, Y. Liu et al., “Experimental exploration of five-qubit quantum
[20] J. C. Garcia-Escartin and P. Chamorro-Posada, “Equivalent quantum error-correcting code with superconducting qubits,” National Science
circuits,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1110.2998, 2011. Review, vol. 9, no. 1, p. nwab011, 2022.
[21] G. Alber, T. Beth, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, M. Rot- [42] S. Bravyi, J. A. Latone, and D. Maslov, “6-qubit optimal clifford
teler, H. Weinfurter, R. Werner, A. Zeilinger, T. Beth et al., “Quantum circuits,” npj Quantum Information, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 79, 2022.
algorithms: Applicable algebra and quantum physics,” Quantum infor- [43] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum
mation: an introduction to basic theoretical concepts and experiments, Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press,
pp. 96–150, 2001. 2010.
[22] K. N. Patel, I. L. Markov, and J. P. Hayes, “Optimal synthesis of linear [44] A. Mondal and K. K. Parhi, “Optimization of quantum circuits for
reversible circuits.” Quantum Inf. Comput., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 282–294, stabilizer codes,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular
2008. Papers, vol. 71, no. 8, pp. 3647–3657, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1109/
[23] M. Bataille, “Quantum circuits of cnot gates: optimization and entangle- TCSI.2024.3384436.
ment,” Quantum Information Processing, vol. 21, no. 7, p. 269, 2022.
[24] P. Imany, J. A. Jaramillo-Villegas, M. S. Alshaykh, J. M. Lukens, O. D.
Odele, A. J. Moore, D. E. Leaird, M. Qi, and A. M. Weiner, “High-
dimensional optical quantum logic in large operational spaces,” npj
Quantum Information, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 59, 2019.