EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Christian Ufrecht
dblp:314/5824
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · unresolved
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 1 · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper |
Emerging computing paradigms · 100% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Quantum computing and quantum information · 100% | |
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Reinforcement learning · 100% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Emerging computing paradigms › quantum computer architecture › quantum circuit simulation
circuit cutting |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Joint Cutting for Hybrid Schrödinger-Feynman Simulation of Quantum Circuits · DAC 2025 |
Emerging computing paradigms › quantum computer architecture
quantum circuit simulation |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Joint Cutting for Hybrid Schrödinger-Feynman Simulation of Quantum Circuits · DAC 2025 |
Emerging computing paradigms
quantum computer architecture |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Joint Cutting for Hybrid Schrödinger-Feynman Simulation of Quantum Circuits · DAC 2025 |
Quantum computing and quantum information
quantum machine learning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Benchmarking Quantum Reinforcement Learning · ICML 2025 |
Quantum computing and quantum information › quantum machine learning
quantum reinforcement learning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Benchmarking Quantum Reinforcement Learning · ICML 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
statistical estimator · 1.7benchmarking methodology · 1.7statevector simulation · 0.9circuit cutting · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Joint Cutting for Hybrid Schrödinger-Feynman Simulation of Quantum CircuitsabstractDespite the continuous advancements in size and robustness of real quantum devices, reliable large-scale quantum computers are not yet available. Hence, classical simulation of quantum algorithms remains crucial for testing new methods and estimating quantum advantage. Pushing classical simulation methods to their limit is essential, particularly due to their inherent exponential complexity. Besides the established Schrödinger-style full statevector simulation, so-called Hybrid Schrödinger-Feynman (HSF) approaches have shown promise to make simulations more efficient. HSF simulation employs the idea of “cutting” the circuit into smaller parts, reducing their execution times. This, however, comes at the cost of an exponential overhead in the number of cuts. Inspired by the domain of Quantum Circuit Cutting, we propose an HSF simulation method based on the idea of “joint cutting” to significantly reduce the aforementioned overhead. This means that, prior to the cutting procedure, gates are collected into “blocks” and all gates in a block are jointly cut instead of individually. We investigate how the proposed refinement can help decrease simulation times and highlight the remaining challenges. Experimental evaluations show that “joint cutting” can outperform the standard HSF simulation by up to a factor $\approx 4000 \times$ and the Schrödinger-style simulation by a factor $\approx 200 \times$ for suitable instances. The implementation is available at https://github.com/cda-tum/mqt-qsim-joint-cutting. Laura S. Herzog, Lukas Burgholzer, Christian Ufrecht, Daniel D. Scherer, Robert Wille |
DAC | 3 |
| 2025 | Benchmarking Quantum Reinforcement LearningabstractBenchmarking and establishing proper statistical validation metrics for reinforcement learning (RL) remain ongoing challenges, where no consensus has been established yet. The emergence of quantum computing and its potential applications in quantum reinforcement learning (QRL) further complicate benchmarking efforts. To enable valid performance comparisons and to streamline current research in this area, we propose a novel benchmarking methodology, which is based on a statistical estimator for sample complexity and a definition of statistical outperformance. Furthermore, considering QRL, our methodology casts doubt on some previous claims regarding its superiority. We conducted experiments on a novel benchmarking environment with flexible levels of complexity. While we still identify possible advantages, our findings are more nuanced overall. We discuss the potential limitations of these results and explore their implications for empirical research on quantum advantage in QRL. Nico Meyer, Christian Ufrecht, George Yammine, Georgios D. Kontes, Christopher Mutschler, Daniel D. Scherer |
ICML | 2 |