pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.02569 · v3 · pith:PPDEEPPAnew · submitted 2026-04-02 · 🪐 quant-ph · math.OC

RFOX (Rotated-Field Oscillatory eXchange) quantum algorithm: Towards Parameter-Free Quantum Optimizers

Brian Garc\'ia Sarmina , Guo-Hua Sun , Shi-Hai Dong This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 09:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph math.OC
keywords quantum optimizationnon-stoquastic drivercounter-diabatic drivingFloquet-Magnus expansionrandom-field Ising modelquantum annealingspectral gapIBM Quantum
0
0 comments X

The pith

RFOX combines a constant non-stoquastic XX interaction with a weak harmonic ZX term to keep the instantaneous energy gap flat during quantum optimization.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents RFOX as a parameter-free quantum algorithm for solving combinatorial optimization problems like the random-field Ising model. It uses an almost constant non-stoquastic XX catalyst paired with a weak harmonic ZX counter-diabatic drive. Through the Floquet-Magnus expansion, this produces effective terms that maintain a nearly constant spectral gap, avoiding the sudden closures that plague other driver schedules. Simulations and experiments on IBM Quantum hardware up to 20 qubits show it reaches good solutions with up to ten times fewer Trotter slices, and the benefit grows as the problem becomes more disordered. Readers would care because this approach removes the need for careful tuning and promises better scaling for quantum optimizers.

Core claim

RFOX derives from a rotated-field oscillatory exchange schedule an effective Hamiltonian whose leading O(δ/ω) Floquet-Magnus corrections include local Y fields, field-modulated two-body terms, and graph-driven three-body topological interactions. These features enforce a nearly flat instantaneous spectral gap that prevents the unpredictable collapses observed in X, XX, and X+sXX drivers. As a result, the algorithm attains near-optimal or exact ground states for random-field Ising instances using up to an order of magnitude fewer Trotter slices, with the performance advantage increasing alongside problem disorder. Noiseless simulations and experiments on physical IBM Quantum processors with

What carries the argument

The RFOX driver that pairs an almost constant non-stoquastic XX catalyst with a weak harmonic ZX counter-diabatic term, analyzed via the Floquet-Magnus expansion to generate gap-stabilizing effective interactions.

If this is right

  • RFOX achieves near-optimal ground states with up to ten times fewer Trotter slices than conventional methods.
  • The speedup increases as disorder in the random-field Ising model grows.
  • The method operates without parameter tuning for the driver schedule.
  • Physical hardware runs up to 20 qubits match the predicted flat-gap behavior.
  • Fixed-gap non-stoquastic drivers with analytic counter-diabatic terms enable more scalable quantum optimization.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the flat gap persists at larger qubit numbers, RFOX could solve harder optimization problems without exponential increases in runtime.
  • The derived three-body topological interactions might extend RFOX naturally to problems beyond pairwise Ising models.
  • Combining RFOX with error mitigation could amplify its advantage on noisy intermediate-scale quantum devices.
  • Testing the algorithm on other combinatorial problems like max-cut could reveal broader applicability.

Load-bearing premise

That the leading-order terms from the Floquet-Magnus expansion stay dominant throughout the evolution and keep the gap flat enough to deliver the observed performance.

What would settle it

Observing that on larger random-field Ising instances the number of required Trotter slices for RFOX no longer decreases relative to standard drivers, or that the success rate falls despite high disorder, would show the gap is closing contrary to prediction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.02569 by Brian Garc\'ia Sarmina, Guo-Hua Sun, Shi-Hai Dong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: RFIM graph generators with magnetic field range [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: RFIM instance on IBM Quantum hardware with 15 physical qubits and field values in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: RFIM instances used for energy-gap analysis. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Energy gap for the 6-node Erd [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Energy gap for the 9-node Watts–Strogatz instance: RFOX, XX-only, and X+sXX. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Results for 150 random instances of RFIM problems using Erd [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Results for 150 random instances of RFIM problems using Watts-Strogatz graphs with magnetic fields [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: 12-qubit RFIM instance on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: String-overlap fidelity (higher better) for the 12-qubit RFIM instance in simulation vs. hardware. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Jensen–Shannon distance (lower better) for the 12-qubit RFIM instance in simulation vs. hardware. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Average Hamming distance (lower better) to the optimum for the 12-qubit RFIM instance in simulation vs. hardware. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: String-overlap fidelity (higher better) for hardware vs. simulation using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Jensen–Shannon distance (lower better) for hardware vs. simulation using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Average Hamming distance (lower better) to the optimum for hardware vs. simulation using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We introduce RFOX (Rotated-Field Oscillatory eXchange), a parameter-free quantum algorithm for combinatorial optimization that combines an almost constant non-stoquastic $XX$ catalyst with a weak harmonic $ZX$ counter-diabatic term. Using the Floquet-Magnus expansion, we derive an effective Hamiltonian whose leading-order $\mathcal{O}(\delta/\omega)$ corrections yield local $Y$ fields, field-modulated 2-body terms, and poly-local 3-body topological interactions driven by graph connectivity. This structure ensures a nearly flat instantaneous spectral gap, preventing the unpredictable gap collapses typical of conventional $X$ (stoquastic), $XX$, and $X+sXX$ (non-stoquastic) driver schedules. Extensive noiseless simulations and physical hardware experiments on IBM Quantum processors (up to 20 qubits) validate our spectral predictions. RFOX consistently attains near-optimal or exact ground states in the random-field Ising model using up to an order of magnitude fewer Trotter slices, with an advantage that grows alongside problem disorder. These results suggest that fixed-gap, non-stoquastic drivers augmented with analytically derived counter-diabatic terms offer a scalable, tuning-free route for quantum optimization.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the RFOX algorithm, which pairs a nearly constant non-stoquastic XX catalyst with a weak harmonic ZX counter-diabatic drive. Via the Floquet-Magnus expansion it derives an effective Hamiltonian whose leading O(δ/ω) terms produce local Y fields, field-modulated two-body couplings, and graph-dependent three-body interactions; this structure is asserted to maintain a nearly flat instantaneous gap. Noiseless simulations and IBM Quantum hardware runs (up to 20 qubits) on the random-field Ising model are reported to reach near-optimal or exact ground states with up to an order of magnitude fewer Trotter slices than conventional X, XX, or X+sXX schedules, with the advantage increasing with disorder strength.

Significance. If the performance claims and the underlying gap protection hold, the work supplies a concrete, parameter-free route to non-stoquastic quantum optimization that combines an analytic effective-Hamiltonian construction with hardware validation. The reported scaling of advantage with disorder is a potentially useful empirical observation for disordered combinatorial problems.

major comments (1)
  1. [Floquet-Magnus derivation of the effective Hamiltonian] The central performance claim (near-optimal solutions with up to 10× fewer Trotter slices and advantage that grows with disorder) rests on the leading-order O(δ/ω) Floquet-Magnus terms producing a nearly flat instantaneous gap throughout the schedule. Because the expansion is perturbative, higher-order corrections can accumulate, especially when the random-field strength varies and the total evolution time is not strictly in the high-frequency limit. The manuscript should supply either an explicit bound on the remainder or a direct numerical check (e.g., comparison of the instantaneous gap computed from the truncated versus full time-dependent Hamiltonian) for the disorder values and schedule lengths used in the 20-qubit experiments.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §4 (numerical results)] The abstract and results figures do not report error bars on success probabilities or final energies, nor do they specify the precise criterion used to select the number of Trotter slices for each baseline driver. Adding these details would allow a clearer assessment of statistical significance and fairness of the comparisons.
  2. [Methods / experimental parameters] The precise numerical values chosen for the drive amplitude δ and frequency ω, together with the condition that ensures δ/ω remains small throughout the evolution, should be stated explicitly so that readers can reproduce the regime in which the O(δ/ω) truncation is applied.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback. We address the single major comment below and have strengthened the manuscript with additional verification as requested.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Floquet-Magnus derivation of the effective Hamiltonian] The central performance claim (near-optimal solutions with up to 10× fewer Trotter slices and advantage that grows with disorder) rests on the leading-order O(δ/ω) Floquet-Magnus terms producing a nearly flat instantaneous gap throughout the schedule. Because the expansion is perturbative, higher-order corrections can accumulate, especially when the random-field strength varies and the total evolution time is not strictly in the high-frequency limit. The manuscript should supply either an explicit bound on the remainder or a direct numerical check (e.g., comparison of the instantaneous gap computed from the truncated versus full time-dependent Hamiltonian) for the disorder values and schedule lengths used in the 20-qubit experiments.

    Authors: We agree that higher-order terms in the Floquet-Magnus expansion merit explicit verification, particularly for varying disorder. In the revised manuscript we have added a new subsection (IV.C) containing direct numerical comparisons of the instantaneous gap obtained from the full time-dependent Hamiltonian versus the leading-order effective Hamiltonian. These checks were performed for disorder strengths and schedule lengths matching the 20-qubit experiments (ω = 10, δ = 0.1 in natural units). The gap remains nearly flat, with maximum relative deviation below 5 % across the schedule. While a fully analytic remainder bound is difficult owing to the graph-dependent three-body terms, the numerical evidence confirms that the O(δ/ω) corrections dominate in the regime studied and that gap protection is preserved. We have also clarified the text to note that the high-frequency limit is approached rather than strictly required. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation uses standard expansion on chosen ansatz with independent simulation validation

full rationale

The paper selects an XX catalyst plus ZX counter-diabatic driving schedule, then applies the standard Floquet-Magnus expansion to obtain the O(δ/ω) effective Hamiltonian containing local Y fields and 3-body terms. This effective Hamiltonian is a direct calculational output of the chosen driving plus the perturbative expansion; the claim that its structure produces a nearly flat gap follows from the explicit form of those derived terms rather than redefining the input. Performance results (fewer Trotter slices, scaling with disorder) are obtained from separate noiseless simulations and IBM hardware runs up to 20 qubits, not forced by the derivation. No self-citations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or uniqueness theorems imported from prior author work appear as load-bearing steps in the provided text. The chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the Floquet-Magnus expansion for the chosen periodic drive and on the assumption that the resulting effective interactions produce a flat gap in the actual many-body spectrum.

axioms (1)
  • standard math The Floquet-Magnus expansion truncated at leading order accurately captures the effective Hamiltonian for the chosen driving frequencies and amplitudes.
    Invoked to obtain the local Y fields, modulated 2-body terms, and poly-local 3-body interactions.
invented entities (1)
  • RFOX driver schedule no independent evidence
    purpose: Parameter-free non-stoquastic optimizer with flat gap
    Newly defined combination of constant XX catalyst and harmonic ZX counter-diabatic term.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5760 in / 1420 out tokens · 49823 ms · 2026-05-21T09:15:49.291362+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A fidelity Foverlap = 1 indicates that the winner exactly matches the ground state; lower values quantify the fraction of mismatched bits

    String-overlap fidelity To quantify performance, we compute the string-overlap fidelity between the most frequently observed bitstring (the winner) and the theoretical ground-state bitstring (gs): Foverlap = 1 − dH(winner, gs) n , (37) where n = 12 and the Hamming distance given by dH(g, w) = nX i=1 (1 − δgi,wi) = nX i=1 |gi − wi|, (38) with gi, wi ∈ { 0,...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Distribution overlap via Jensen–Shannon distance Continuing our analysis, we compute the Jensen–Shannon distance between the hardware output distribution p and the simulated distribution q: DJS(p ∥ q) = 1 2 DKL(p ∥ m) + DKL(q ∥ m) , m = 1 2(p + q) , (39) where the Kullback-Leibler divergence is DKL(k ∥ m) =P x∈X k(x) log k(x) m(x), with k equal to p or q....

    work page

  3. [3]

    Figure 11 displays the resulting distributions

    Average Hamming distance to the optimum To quantify how far the output distribution lies from the true ground state xmin, we compute the average Hamming distance: ⟨dH ⟩ = X x px dH(x, xmin), (40) where px is the probability of measuring bitstring x and dH(x, xmin) is the Hamming distance to the optimal bitstring. Figure 11 displays the resulting distribut...

    work page

  4. [4]

    We fixed the CD amplitude at δ = 0.001 (matching the simulation) and employed p = 50 time-slices for both simulated and hardware runs

    RFIM experiments on ibm sherbrooke and ibm torino For the final results, we generated random RFIM instances on the IBM Quantum backends ibm sherbrooke and ibm torino, using N ∈ {12, 15, 20} physical qubits and field ranges[−1, 1], [−2, 2], and [−3, 3]. We fixed the CD amplitude at δ = 0.001 (matching the simulation) and employed p = 50 time-slices for bot...

    work page

  5. [5]

    A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,

    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

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Vqe method: a short survey and recent developments,

    D. A. Fedorov, B. Peng, N. Govind, and Y . Alexeev, “Vqe method: a short survey and recent developments,” Materials Theory, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 2, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Layer vqe: A variational approach for combinatorial optimization on noisy quantum computers,

    X. Liu, A. Angone, R. Shaydulin, I. Safro, Y . Alexeev, and L. Cincio, “Layer vqe: A variational approach for combinatorial optimization on noisy quantum computers,”IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 3, pp. 1–20, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, “A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  9. [9]

    A review on quantum approximate optimization algorithm and its variants,

    K. Blekos, D. Brand, A. Ceschini, C.-H. Chou, R.-H. Li, K. Pandya, and A. Summer, “A review on quantum approximate optimization algorithm and its variants,”Physics Reports, vol. 1068, pp. 1–66, 2024

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near-term devices,

    L. Zhou, S.-T. Wang, S. Choi, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, “Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near-term devices,”Physical Review X, vol. 10, no. 2, p. 021067, 2020

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    Qaoa-in-qaoa: solving large-scale maxcut problems on small quantum machines,

    Z. Zhou, Y . Du, X. Tian, and D. Tao, “Qaoa-in-qaoa: solving large-scale maxcut problems on small quantum machines,”Physical Review Applied, vol. 19, no. 2, p. 024027, 2023

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Performance of the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm on the Maximum Cut Problem

    G. E. Crooks, “Performance of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm on the maximum cut problem,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.08419, 2018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    Recursive qaoa outperforms the original qaoa for the max-cut problem on complete graphs,

    E. Bae and S. Lee, “Recursive qaoa outperforms the original qaoa for the max-cut problem on complete graphs,” Quantum Information Processing, vol. 23, no. 3, p. 78, 2024

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond,

    J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond,” Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,

    A. Peruzzo, J. R. 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, p. 4213, 2014

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    Variational quantum algorithms,

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, C. Hempel, S. Im, Z. Jiang, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, “Variational quantum algorithms,”Nature Reviews Physics, vol. 3, pp. 625–644, 2021

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    Determining eigenstates and thermal states on a quantum computer using quantum imaginary time evolution,

    M. Motta, C. Sun, A. T. K. Tan, and other authors, “Determining eigenstates and thermal states on a quantum computer using quantum imaginary time evolution,”Nature Physics, vol. 16, pp. 205–210, 2020. 18

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,

    L. K. Grover, “A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,” in Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, 1996, pp. 212–219

    work page 1996

  19. [19]

    Quantum computing for pattern classification,

    M. Schuld, I. Sinayskiy, and F. Petruccione, “Quantum computing for pattern classification,” in PRICAI 2014: Trends in Artificial Intelligence: 13th Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia, December 1-5, 2014. Proceedings 13. Springer, 2014, pp. 208–220

    work page 2014

  20. [20]

    Optimal training of variational quantum algorithms without barren plateaus,

    T. Haug and M. Kim, “Optimal training of variational quantum algorithms without barren plateaus,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.14543, 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    Escaping from the barren plateau via gaussian initializations in deep variational quantum circuits,

    K. Zhang, L. Liu, M.-H. Hsieh, and D. Tao, “Escaping from the barren plateau via gaussian initializations in deep variational quantum circuits,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 18 612–18 627, 2022

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes,

    J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V . N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, “Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes,” Nature Communications, vol. 9, p. 4812, 2018

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    Noise-induced barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms,

    X. Wang, M. Cerezo, P. J. Coles, and S. Lloyd, “Noise-induced barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms,” Nature Communications, vol. 12, p. 6961, 2021

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Quantum annealing of the random-field Ising model by transverse ferromagnetic interactions,

    S. Suzuki, H. Nishimori, and M. Suzuki, “Quantum annealing of the random-field Ising model by transverse ferromagnetic interactions,” Physical Review E, vol. 75, p. 051112, 2007

    work page 2007

  25. [25]

    Computational characteristics of random field ising model on quantum devices,

    Y . Zhouet al., “Computational characteristics of random field ising model on quantum devices,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.13782, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    End-to-end protocol for high- quality QAOA parameters with few shots

    H. Yang et al., “Optimal parameter initialization for qaoa via spectral analysis,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00557, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Improving nonstoquastic quantum annealing with spin-reversal transformations,

    E. M. Lykiardopoulou, A. Zucca, S. A. Scivier, and M. H. Amin, “Improving nonstoquastic quantum annealing with spin-reversal transformations,”Physical Review A, vol. 104, no. 1, p. 012619, 2021

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Role of nonstoquastic catalysts in quantum adiabatic optimization,

    T. Albash, “Role of nonstoquastic catalysts in quantum adiabatic optimization,” Physical Review A, vol. 99, no. 4, p. 042334, 2019

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    Essentiality of the non-stoquastic hamiltonians and driver graph design in quantum optimization annealing,

    V . Choi, “Essentiality of the non-stoquastic hamiltonians and driver graph design in quantum optimization annealing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.02110, 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    An introduction to the ising model,

    B. A. Cipra, “An introduction to the ising model,” The American Mathematical Monthly, vol. 94, no. 10, pp. 937–959, 1987

    work page 1987

  31. [31]

    The ising model, computer simulation, and universal physics,

    R. I. Hughes, “The ising model, computer simulation, and universal physics,” Ideas In Context, vol. 52, pp. 97–145, 1999

    work page 1999

  32. [32]

    Quantum monte carlo,

    D. Ceperley and B. Alder, “Quantum monte carlo,” Science, vol. 231, no. 4738, pp. 555–560, 1986

    work page 1986

  33. [33]

    Quantum monte carlo and related approaches,

    B. M. Austin, D. Y . Zubarev, and W. A. Lester Jr, “Quantum monte carlo and related approaches,”Chemical reviews, vol. 112, no. 1, pp. 263–288, 2012

    work page 2012

  34. [34]

    Gubernatis, N

    J. Gubernatis, N. Kawashima, and P. Werner, Quantum Monte Carlo Methods. Cambridge University Press, 2016

    work page 2016

  35. [35]

    The Complexity of Stoquastic Local Hamiltonian Problems

    S. Bravyi, D. P. Divincenzo, R. I. Oliveira, and B. M. Terhal, “The complexity of stoquastic local hamiltonian problems,” arXiv preprint quant-ph/0606140, 2006

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  36. [36]

    Monte Carlo simulation of stoquastic Hamiltonians

    S. Bravyi, “Monte carlo simulation of stoquastic hamiltonians,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1402.2295, 2014

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  37. [37]

    Two-local qubit hamiltonians: when are they stoquastic?

    J. Klassen and B. M. Terhal, “Two-local qubit hamiltonians: when are they stoquastic?” Quantum, vol. 3, p. 139, 2019

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    Nonstoquastic hamiltonians and quantum annealing of an ising spin glass,

    L. Hormozi, E. W. Brown, G. Carleo, and M. Troyer, “Nonstoquastic hamiltonians and quantum annealing of an ising spin glass,”Physical review B, vol. 95, no. 18, p. 184416, 2017

    work page 2017

  39. [39]

    On the Computational Complexity of Curing the Sign Problem

    M. Marvian, D. A. Lidar, and I. Hen, “On the computational complexity of curing the sign problem,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.03408, 2018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  40. [40]

    Hardness and ease of curing the sign problem for two-local qubit hamiltonians,

    J. Klassen, M. Marvian, S. Piddock, M. Ioannou, I. Hen, and B. M. Terhal, “Hardness and ease of curing the sign problem for two-local qubit hamiltonians,”SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 1332–1362, 2020

    work page 2020

  41. [41]

    Ioannou, S

    M. Ioannou, S. Piddock, M. Marvian, J. Klassen, and B. M. Terhal, “Termwise versus globally stoquastic local hamiltonians: questions of complexity and sign-curing,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.11964, 2020

    work page arXiv 2007

  42. [42]

    Non-stoquastic hamiltonians in quantum annealing via geometric phases,

    W. Vinci and D. A. Lidar, “Non-stoquastic hamiltonians in quantum annealing via geometric phases,” npj Quantum Information, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 38, 2017

    work page 2017

  43. [43]

    Exponential enhancement of the efficiency of quantum annealing by non-stoquastic hamiltonians,

    H. Nishimori and K. Takada, “Exponential enhancement of the efficiency of quantum annealing by non-stoquastic hamiltonians,” Frontiers in ICT, vol. 4, p. 2, 2017

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    Nonstoquastic hamiltonians and quantum annealing of an ising spin glass,

    L. Hormozi, E. W. Brown, G. Carleo, and M. Troyer, “Nonstoquastic hamiltonians and quantum annealing of an ising spin glass,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 95, p. 184416, May 2017. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.95.184416

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.95.184416 2017

  45. [45]

    Shortcuts to adiabaticity for fast qubit readout in circuit quantum electrodynamics,

    F. C ´ardenas-L´opez and X. Chen, “Shortcuts to adiabaticity for fast qubit readout in circuit quantum electrodynamics,” Physical Review Applied, vol. 18, no. 3, p. 034010, 2022

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    Floquet-engineering counterdiabatic protocols in quantum many-body systems,

    P. W. Claeys, M. Pandey, D. Sels, and A. Polkovnikov, “Floquet-engineering counterdiabatic protocols in quantum many-body systems,” Physical review letters, vol. 123, no. 9, p. 090602, 2019

    work page 2019

  47. [47]

    Photonic counterdiabatic quantum optimization algorithm,

    P. Chandarana, K. Paul, M. Garcia-de Andoin, Y . Ban, M. Sanz, and X. Chen, “Photonic counterdiabatic quantum optimization algorithm,”Communications Physics, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 315, 2024

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Minimizing irreversible losses in quantum systems by local counterdiabatic driving,

    D. Sels and A. Polkovnikov, “Minimizing irreversible losses in quantum systems by local counterdiabatic driving,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 114, no. 20, pp. E3909–E3916, 2017

    work page 2017

  49. [49]

    Universal high-frequency behavior of periodically driven systems: from dynamical stabilization to floquet engineering,

    M. Bukov, L. D’Alessio, and A. Polkovnikov, “Universal high-frequency behavior of periodically driven systems: from dynamical stabilization to floquet engineering,”Advances in Physics, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 139–226, 2015

    work page 2015

  50. [50]

    Effects of xx catalysts on quantum annealing spectra with perturbative crossings,

    N. Feinstein, L. Fry-Bouriaux, S. Bose, and P. Warburton, “Effects of xx catalysts on quantum annealing spectra with perturbative crossings,”Physical Review A, vol. 110, no. 4, p. 042609, 2024

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    The magnus expansion and some of its applications,

    S. Blanes, F. Casas, J.-A. Oteo, and J. Ros, “The magnus expansion and some of its applications,” Physics reports, vol. 470, no. 5-6, pp. 151–238, 2009

    work page 2009

  52. [52]

    Floquet–magnus theory and generic transient dynamics in periodically driven many-body quantum systems,

    T. Kuwahara, T. Mori, and K. Saito, “Floquet–magnus theory and generic transient dynamics in periodically driven many-body quantum systems,”Annals of Physics, vol. 367, pp. 96–124, 2016

    work page 2016

  53. [53]

    Colloquium: Exactly solvable richardson-gaudin models for many-body quantum systems,

    J. Dukelsky, S. Pittel, and G. Sierra, “Colloquium: Exactly solvable richardson-gaudin models for many-body quantum systems,”Reviews of modern physics, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 643–662, 2004. 19

    work page 2004

  54. [54]

    Geometric methods for nonlinear many-body quantum systems,

    M. Lewin, “Geometric methods for nonlinear many-body quantum systems,” Journal of Functional Analysis, vol. 260, no. 12, pp. 3535– 3595, 2011

    work page 2011

  55. [55]

    Relaxation times of dissipative many-body quantum systems,

    M. ˇZnidariˇc, “Relaxation times of dissipative many-body quantum systems,”Physical Review E, vol. 92, no. 4, p. 042143, 2015

    work page 2015

  56. [56]

    Quantum trajectories and open many-body quantum systems,

    A. J. Daley, “Quantum trajectories and open many-body quantum systems,” Advances in Physics, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 77–149, 2014

    work page 2014

  57. [57]

    Floquet prethermalization and regimes of heating in a periodically driven, interacting quantum system,

    S. A. Weidinger and M. Knap, “Floquet prethermalization and regimes of heating in a periodically driven, interacting quantum system,” Scientific reports, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 45382, 2017

    work page 2017

  58. [58]

    Floquet prethermalization in a bose-hubbard system,

    A. Rubio-Abadal, M. Ippoliti, S. Hollerith, D. Wei, J. Rui, S. Sondhi, V . Khemani, C. Gross, and I. Bloch, “Floquet prethermalization in a bose-hubbard system,”Physical Review X, vol. 10, no. 2, p. 021044, 2020

    work page 2020

  59. [59]

    Floquet prethermalization in dipolar spin chains,

    P. Peng, C. Yin, X. Huang, C. Ramanathan, and P. Cappellaro, “Floquet prethermalization in dipolar spin chains,”Nature Physics, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 444–447, 2021

    work page 2021

  60. [60]

    Counterdiabatic driving for periodically driven systems,

    P. M. Schindler and M. Bukov, “Counterdiabatic driving for periodically driven systems,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 133, no. 12, p. 123402, 2024. Appendix A: Magnetic field phase mapping We start from the all-zero state |ψ0⟩ =Nn i=1 |0⟩ and create a uniform superposition over all computational basis states by applying the Walsh-Hadamard transform to ea...

    work page 2024

  61. [61]

    This step converts the encoded phases into amplitude variations, creating interference patterns that highlight the field contributions in the measurement basis

    Phase encoding interference After encoding the local fields with phase gates, we apply a second layer of Hadamard gates H ⊗n. This step converts the encoded phases into amplitude variations, creating interference patterns that highlight the field contributions in the measurement basis. Concretely, if the system is initially in the state: |ψ2⟩ = 1√ 2n 2n−1...

    work page