Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science

Quantum Patterns and Types for Entanglement and Separability

Simon Perdrix

Published Mar 1, 2007• 22 citations
Publisher

Abstract

As a first step toward a notion of quantum data structures, we introduce a typing system for reflecting entanglement and separability. This is presented in the context of classically controlled quantum computation where a classical program controls a sequence of quantum operations, i.e. unitary transformations and measurements acting on a quantum memory. Abstract models for such quantum computations are the Quantum Random Access Machine (QRAM [E. Knill, Conventions for Quantum Pseudocode, LANL report LAUR-96-2724, 1996]) and the Classically-Controlled Quantum Turing Machine (CQTM [S. Perdrix, Ph. Jorrand, Classically-Controlled Quantum Computation, arXiv:quant-ph/0407008, to appear in Mathematical Structures in Computer Science]). Several quantum programming languages follow this model [S. Bettelli, T. Calarco, L. Serafini, Toward an architecture for quantum programming, Eur. Phys. J. D 25 (2) (2003) 181–200, S.J. Gay, R. Nagarajan, Communicating quantum processes, Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, Jens Palsberg and Martin Abadi (Eds.), POPL 2005, January 12–14, 2005, pp. 145–157, M. Lalire, Ph. Jorrand, A process algebraic approach to concurrent and distributed quantum computation: operational semantics, Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Quantum Programming Languages, 2004, pp. 109–126, J.W. Sanders, P. Zuliani, Quantum Programming, Mathematics of Program Construction, Springer LNCS 1837, 80–99, 2000, P. Selinger, Towards a Quantum Programming Language, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 14 (4) (2004) 527–586]. Among them, the functional language defined by Valiron [B. Valiron, Quantum Typing, Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Quantum Programming Languages, 2004, pp. 163–178] is the basis for the language developed in this paper. This is work in progress.

DOI
10.1016/j.entcs.2006.12.015

Related papers

Models of quantum computation and quantum programming languages

Jarosław Adam Miszczak

Models of quantum computation and quantum programming languages The goal of the presented paper is to provide an introduction to the basic computational models used in quantum information theory. We review various models of quantum Turing machine, quantum circuits and quantum random access machine (QRAM) along with their classical counterparts. We also provide an introduction to quantum programming languages, which are developed using the QRAM model. We review the syntax of several existing quantum programming languages and discuss their features and limitations.

arXiv:1012.6035•Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences Technical Sciences•Sep 1, 2011•34 citations

Discrete classical vs. continuous quantum data in abstract quantum mechanics

Samson Abramsky, Bob Coecke

``Quantum'' stands for for the concepts (both operational and formal) which had to be added to classical physics in order to understand otherwise unexplainable observed phenomena such as the structure of the spectral lines in atomic spectra. While the basic part of classical mechanics deals with the (essentially) reversible dynamics, quantum required adding the notions of ``measurement'' and (possibly non-local) ``correlations'' to the discussion. Crucially, all this comes with a ``probabilistic calculus''. The corresponding mathematical formalism was considered to have reached maturity in [von Neumann 1932], but there are some manifest problems with that formalism: (i) While measurements are applied to physical systems, application of their formal counterpart (i.e. a self-adjoint linear operator) to the vector representing that state of the system in no way reflects how the state changes during the act of measurement. Analogously, the composite of two self-adjoint operators has no physical significance while in practice measurements can be effectuated sequentially. More generally, the formal types in von Neumann's formalism do not reflect the nature of the corresponding underlying concept at all! (ii) Part of the problem regarding the measurements discussed above is that in the von Neumann formalism there is no place for storage, manipulation and exchange of the classical data obtained from measurements. Protocols such as quantum teleportation involving these cannot be given a full formal description. (iii) The behavioral properties of quantum entanglement which for example enable continuous data exchange using only finitary communication are hidden in the formalism. In [Abramsky and Coecke 2004] we addressed all these problems, and in addition provided a purely categorical axiomatization of quantum mechanics. The concepts of the abstract quantum mechanics are formulated relative to a strongly compact closed category with biproducts (of which the category FdHilb of finite dimensional Hilbert spaces and linear maps is an example). Preparations, measurements, either destructive or not, classical data exchange are all morphisms in that category, and their types fully reflect their kinds. Correctness properties of standard quantum protocols can be abstractly proven. Surprisingly, in this seemingly purely qualitative setting even the quantitative Born rule arises, that is the rule which tells you how to calculate the probabilities. Indeed, each such category has as endomorphism Hom of the tensor unit an abelian semiring of `scalars', and a special subset of these scalars will play the role of weights: each scalar induces a natural transformation which propagates through physical processes, and when a `state' undergoes a `measurement', the composition of the corresponding morphisms gives rise to the weight. Hence the probabilistic weights live within the category of processes. J. von Neumann. Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Springer-Verlag (1932). English translation in Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton University Press (1955). S. Abramsky and B. Coecke. A categorical semantics of quantum protocols. In the proceedings of LiCS'04 (2004). An extended version is available at arXiv:quant-ph/0402130 A more reader friendly version entitled `Quantum information flow, concretely, abstractly' is at http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/Bob/Papers/QPL.pdf

Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings•Jan 1, 2005•0 citations

Combiner le contrôle classique et quantique : une perspective logique, syntaxique et sémantique

Kinnari Vijay Dave

The focus of this thesis is on laying the theoretical foundation for designing an all-encompassing programming language for quantum computing. The idea inspiring all the contributions of this thesis was to mirror the development of programming languages and logic done for classical computing for its quantum counterpart. Following the groundwork of the Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondence, we try to delve into the three cornerstones of this correspondence - programming languages, logic and category theory with a focus on combining two paradigms of control flow in programs - quantum and classical into one framework. We have tried to achieve more. We have also touched upon the two complementary view of quantum mechanics- Heisenberg and Schrödinger, and adopted one view to define a physically intuitive semantics for the languages we discuss. There are two main contributions that this thesis makes to the existing literature on quantum programming languages. We first introduce a quantum lambda calculus which combines quantum and classical control, whose design is guided by the mathematical structure of its physically intuitive denotational semantics. The operational semantics for this language, is based on an adaptation of quantum configurations which we introduce, and is tied to the denotational model through an adequacy result. The language also provides a prototype of quantum inductive types through the type qnat- a type for quantum natural numbers. The denotational model for this calculus is based on von Neumann algebras- which are at the heart of the mathematical formulation of the Heisenberg view of quantum mechanics. The second contribution is a proof language for the IMALL fragment of Linear logic which builds on some key observations from the calculus introduced above. This language is one of the first such works to be able to support programs which combine constructs such as the quantum switch with measurement. In this aspect, this work is a strict improvement on the previous calculus, since it supports a more fine grained version of quantum control, thus enabling expression of algorithms such as the well-known quantum switch. The syntax is also linear algebraic in nature, supporting linear combinations of terms. A key consequence of this, along with the semantics of the B modality that it introduces is that measurement is no longer a ground construct of the language. In fact, it can now be written as just another program in the language. Finally, the denotational semantics for this work is based on C*-algebras - a generalization of von Neumann algebras. The denotational model is shown to be adequate for the operational semantics, whose linearity turns out to be a natural consequence of this. Finally, we conclude this thesis with limitations of these works and possible directions for future work.

•Dec 17, 2025•0 citations

A programming language combining quantum and classical control

Kinnari Dave, Louis Lemonnier, Romain Péchoux +1 more

The two main notions of control in quantum programming languages are often referred to as "quantum control" and "classical control". With the latter, the control flow is based on classical information, potentially resulting from a quantum measurement, and this paradigm is well-suited to mixed state quantum computation. Whereas with quantum control, we are primarily focused on pure quantum computation and there the "control" is based on superposition. The two paradigms have not mixed well traditionally and they are almost always treated separately. In this work, we show that the paradigms may be combined within the same system. The key ingredients for achieving this are: (1) syntactically: a modality for incorporating pure quantum types into a mixed state quantum type system; (2) operationally: an adaptation of the notion of "quantum configuration" from quantum lambda-calculi, where the quantum data is replaced with pure quantum primitives; (3) denotationally: suitable (sub)categories of Hilbert spaces, for pure computation and von Neumann algebras, for mixed state computation in the Heisenberg picture of quantum mechanics.

cs.LOCross-listedarXiv:2511.22537•Nov 28, 2025•0 citations

From Symmetric Pattern-Matching to Quantum Control (Extended Version)

Amr Sabry, Benoît Valiron, Juliana Kaizer Vizzotto

One perspective on quantum algorithms is that they are classical algorithms having access to a special kind of memory with exotic properties. This perspective suggests that, even in the case of quantum algorithms, the control flow notions of sequencing, conditionals, loops, and recursion are entirely classical. There is however, another notion of control flow, that is itself quantum. The notion of quantum conditional expression is reasonably well-understood: the execution of the two expressions becomes itself a superposition of executions. The quantum counterpart of loops and recursion is however not believed to be meaningful in its most general form. In this paper, we argue that, under the right circumstances, a reasonable notion of quantum loops and recursion is possible. To this aim, we first propose a classical, typed, reversible language with lists and fixpoints. We then extend this language to the closed quantum domain (without measurements) by allowing linear combinations of terms and restricting fixpoints to structurally recursive fixpoints whose termination proofs match the proofs of convergence of sequences in infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. We additionally give an operational semantics for the quantum language in the spirit of algebraic lambda-calculi and illustrate its expressiveness by modeling several common unitary operations.

arXiv:1804.00952•Apr 3, 2018•2 citations

Programming with Quantum-Controlled Quantum Channels

Kengo Hirata, Takeshi Tsukada

In contrast to a classical bit, which can only take the value $0$ or $1$, its quantum counterpart -- a qubit -- can exist in a superposition of $0$ and $1$. This is a superposition of data values, naturally raising the question of whether one can superpose not only data but also programs. For example, a particular superposition of programs, known as the quantum SWITCH, has attracted much attention, and its implementations and computational advantages have been studied extensively within the physics community. A naive way to control a program by a qubit is by means of a controlled operation. Given an operation $F$, this amounts to considering an operation that behaves as $F$ when the control qubit is $|1\rangle$, and as the identity operation when the control qubit is $|0\rangle$. This idea works well when $F$ is a unitary operation, but it is not well-defined for a general quantum channel. By contrast, the quantum SWITCH is free from the well-definedness issue. This contrast leads to the key insight of this paper: controlled operations and the quantum SWITCH should be regarded as different kinds of quantum control mechanisms. Building on this insight, we develop a novel quantum programming language with quantum control and measurement that can express the quantum SWITCH over quantum channels. Using a semantic analysis based on program transformations, we identify the source of the ill-behavedness of controlled operations as the \emph{correspondence problem}: a lack of coordination between the measurements performed in the then- and else-branches of quantum conditional branching. We address this problem with a linear type system that enforces alignment of the quantum operations used in the two branches, yielding a well-behaved language capable of expressing the quantum SWITCH.

cs.PLCross-listedarXiv:2607.15873•Jul 20, 2026•0 citations
As a first step toward a notion of quantum data structures, we introduce a typing system for reflecting entanglement and separability. This is presented in the context of classically controlled quantum computation where a classical program controls a sequence of quantum operations, i.e. unitary transformations and measurements acting on a quantum memory. Abstract models for such quantum computations are the Quantum Random Access Machine (QRAM [E. Knill, Conventions for Quantum Pseudocode, LANL report LAUR-96-2724, 1996]) and the Classically-Controlled Quantum Turing Machine (CQTM [S. Perdrix, Ph. Jorrand, Classically-Controlled Quantum Computation, arXiv:quant-ph/0407008, to appear in Mathematical Structures in Computer Science]). Several quantum programming languages follow this model [S. Bettelli, T. Calarco, L. Serafini, Toward an architecture for quantum programming, Eur. Phys. J. D 25 (2) (2003) 181–200, S.J. Gay, R. Nagarajan, Communicating quantum processes, Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, Jens Palsberg and Martin Abadi (Eds.), POPL 2005, January 12–14, 2005, pp. 145–157, M. Lalire, Ph. Jorrand, A process algebraic approach to concurrent and distributed quantum computation: operational semantics, Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Quantum Programming Languages, 2004, pp. 109–126, J.W. Sanders, P. Zuliani, Quantum Programming, Mathematics of Program Construction, Springer LNCS 1837, 80–99, 2000, P. Selinger, Towards a Quantum Programming Language, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 14 (4) (2004) 527–586]. Among them, the functional language defined by Valiron [B. Valiron, Quantum Typing, Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Quantum Programming Languages, 2004, pp. 163–178] is the basis for the language developed in this paper. This is work in progress.
Models of quantum computation and quantum programming languages The goal of the presented paper is to provide an introduction to the basic computational models used in quantum information theory. We review various models of quantum Turing machine, quantum circuits and quantum random access machine (QRAM) along with their classical counterparts. We also provide an introduction to quantum programming languages, which are developed using the QRAM model. We review the syntax of several existing quantum programming languages and discuss their features and limitations.
``Quantum'' stands for for the concepts (both operational and formal) which had to be added to classical physics in order to understand otherwise unexplainable observed phenomena such as the structure of the spectral lines in atomic spectra. While the basic part of classical mechanics deals with the (essentially) reversible dynamics, quantum required adding the notions of ``measurement'' and (possibly non-local) ``correlations'' to the discussion. Crucially, all this comes with a ``probabilistic calculus''. The corresponding mathematical formalism was considered to have reached maturity in [von Neumann 1932], but there are some manifest problems with that formalism: (i) While measurements are applied to physical systems, application of their formal counterpart (i.e. a self-adjoint linear operator) to the vector representing that state of the system in no way reflects how the state changes during the act of measurement. Analogously, the composite of two self-adjoint operators has no physical significance while in practice measurements can be effectuated sequentially. More generally, the formal types in von Neumann's formalism do not reflect the nature of the corresponding underlying concept at all! (ii) Part of the problem regarding the measurements discussed above is that in the von Neumann formalism there is no place for storage, manipulation and exchange of the classical data obtained from measurements. Protocols such as quantum teleportation involving these cannot be given a full formal description. (iii) The behavioral properties of quantum entanglement which for example enable continuous data exchange using only finitary communication are hidden in the formalism. In [Abramsky and Coecke 2004] we addressed all these problems, and in addition provided a purely categorical axiomatization of quantum mechanics. The concepts of the abstract quantum mechanics are formulated relative to a strongly compact closed category with biproducts (of which the category FdHilb of finite dimensional Hilbert spaces and linear maps is an example). Preparations, measurements, either destructive or not, classical data exchange are all morphisms in that category, and their types fully reflect their kinds. Correctness properties of standard quantum protocols can be abstractly proven. Surprisingly, in this seemingly purely qualitative setting even the quantitative Born rule arises, that is the rule which tells you how to calculate the probabilities. Indeed, each such category has as endomorphism Hom of the tensor unit an abelian semiring of `scalars', and a special subset of these scalars will play the role of weights: each scalar induces a natural transformation which propagates through physical processes, and when a `state' undergoes a `measurement', the composition of the corresponding morphisms gives rise to the weight. Hence the probabilistic weights live within the category of processes. J. von Neumann. Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Springer-Verlag (1932). English translation in Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton University Press (1955). S. Abramsky and B. Coecke. A categorical semantics of quantum protocols. In the proceedings of LiCS'04 (2004). An extended version is available at arXiv:quant-ph/0402130 A more reader friendly version entitled `Quantum information flow, concretely, abstractly' is at http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/Bob/Papers/QPL.pdf
The focus of this thesis is on laying the theoretical foundation for designing an all-encompassing programming language for quantum computing. The idea inspiring all the contributions of this thesis was to mirror the development of programming languages and logic done for classical computing for its quantum counterpart. Following the groundwork of the Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondence, we try to delve into the three cornerstones of this correspondence - programming languages, logic and category theory with a focus on combining two paradigms of control flow in programs - quantum and classical into one framework. We have tried to achieve more. We have also touched upon the two complementary view of quantum mechanics- Heisenberg and Schrödinger, and adopted one view to define a physically intuitive semantics for the languages we discuss. There are two main contributions that this thesis makes to the existing literature on quantum programming languages. We first introduce a quantum lambda calculus which combines quantum and classical control, whose design is guided by the mathematical structure of its physically intuitive denotational semantics. The operational semantics for this language, is based on an adaptation of quantum configurations which we introduce, and is tied to the denotational model through an adequacy result. The language also provides a prototype of quantum inductive types through the type qnat- a type for quantum natural numbers. The denotational model for this calculus is based on von Neumann algebras- which are at the heart of the mathematical formulation of the Heisenberg view of quantum mechanics. The second contribution is a proof language for the IMALL fragment of Linear logic which builds on some key observations from the calculus introduced above. This language is one of the first such works to be able to support programs which combine constructs such as the quantum switch with measurement. In this aspect, this work is a strict improvement on the previous calculus, since it supports a more fine grained version of quantum control, thus enabling expression of algorithms such as the well-known quantum switch. The syntax is also linear algebraic in nature, supporting linear combinations of terms. A key consequence of this, along with the semantics of the B modality that it introduces is that measurement is no longer a ground construct of the language. In fact, it can now be written as just another program in the language. Finally, the denotational semantics for this work is based on C*-algebras - a generalization of von Neumann algebras. The denotational model is shown to be adequate for the operational semantics, whose linearity turns out to be a natural consequence of this. Finally, we conclude this thesis with limitations of these works and possible directions for future work.
The two main notions of control in quantum programming languages are often referred to as "quantum control" and "classical control". With the latter, the control flow is based on classical information, potentially resulting from a quantum measurement, and this paradigm is well-suited to mixed state quantum computation. Whereas with quantum control, we are primarily focused on pure quantum computation and there the "control" is based on superposition. The two paradigms have not mixed well traditionally and they are almost always treated separately. In this work, we show that the paradigms may be combined within the same system. The key ingredients for achieving this are: (1) syntactically: a modality for incorporating pure quantum types into a mixed state quantum type system; (2) operationally: an adaptation of the notion of "quantum configuration" from quantum lambda-calculi, where the quantum data is replaced with pure quantum primitives; (3) denotationally: suitable (sub)categories of Hilbert spaces, for pure computation and von Neumann algebras, for mixed state computation in the Heisenberg picture of quantum mechanics.
One perspective on quantum algorithms is that they are classical algorithms having access to a special kind of memory with exotic properties. This perspective suggests that, even in the case of quantum algorithms, the control flow notions of sequencing, conditionals, loops, and recursion are entirely classical. There is however, another notion of control flow, that is itself quantum. The notion of quantum conditional expression is reasonably well-understood: the execution of the two expressions becomes itself a superposition of executions. The quantum counterpart of loops and recursion is however not believed to be meaningful in its most general form. In this paper, we argue that, under the right circumstances, a reasonable notion of quantum loops and recursion is possible. To this aim, we first propose a classical, typed, reversible language with lists and fixpoints. We then extend this language to the closed quantum domain (without measurements) by allowing linear combinations of terms and restricting fixpoints to structurally recursive fixpoints whose termination proofs match the proofs of convergence of sequences in infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. We additionally give an operational semantics for the quantum language in the spirit of algebraic lambda-calculi and illustrate its expressiveness by modeling several common unitary operations.
In contrast to a classical bit, which can only take the value 000 or 111, its quantum counterpart -- a qubit -- can exist in a superposition of 000 and 111. This is a superposition of data values, naturally raising the question of whether one can superpose not only data but also programs. For example, a particular superposition of programs, known as the quantum SWITCH, has attracted much attention, and its implementations and computational advantages have been studied extensively within the physics community. A naive way to control a program by a qubit is by means of a controlled operation. Given an operation FFF, this amounts to considering an operation that behaves as FFF when the control qubit is ∣1⟩|1\rangle∣1⟩, and as the identity operation when the control qubit is ∣0⟩|0\rangle∣0⟩. This idea works well when FFF is a unitary operation, but it is not well-defined for a general quantum channel. By contrast, the quantum SWITCH is free from the well-definedness issue. This contrast leads to the key insight of this paper: controlled operations and the quantum SWITCH should be regarded as different kinds of quantum control mechanisms. Building on this insight, we develop a novel quantum programming language with quantum control and measurement that can express the quantum SWITCH over quantum channels. Using a semantic analysis based on program transformations, we identify the source of the ill-behavedness of controlled operations as the \emph{correspondence problem}: a lack of coordination between the measurements performed in the then- and else-branches of quantum conditional branching. We address this problem with a linear type system that enforces alignment of the quantum operations used in the two branches, yielding a well-behaved language capable of expressing the quantum SWITCH.