Productive Quantum Programming Needs Better Abstract Machines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An effective, accessible abstraction hierarchy has made using and programming computers possible for people across all disciplines. Establishing such a hierarchy for quantum programming is an outstanding challenge, especially due to a proliferation of different conventions and the rapid pace of innovation. One critical portion of the hierarchy is the abstract machine, the layer that separates a programmer's mental model of the hardware from its physical realization. Drawing on historical parallels in classical computing, we explain why having the “right” quantum abstract machine (QAM) is essential for making progress in the field and propose a novel framework for evaluating QAMs based on a set of desirable criteria. These criteria capture aspects of a QAM such as universality, compactness, expressiveness, and composability, which aid in the representation of quantum programs. By defining this framework we take steps toward defining an optimal QAM. We further apply our framework to survey the landscape of existing proposals, draw comparisons, and assess them based on our criteria. While these proposals share many common strengths, we find that each falls short of our ideal. Our framework and our findings set a direction for subsequent efforts to define a future QAM that is both straightforward to map to a variety of quantum computers, and provides a stable abstraction for quantum software development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".