Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Preparation of excited states for nuclear dynamics on a quantum computer

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-27 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that LCU-based state preparation is more efficient, more accurate, and more noise-resilient than short-time evolution for excited states on current quantum hardware.

desk verdict Competent NISQ benchmarking paper with real hardware runs and careful circuit work, but it contains one false analytic bound in Eq. (15) and the claimed LCU accuracy advantage is metric-dependent rather than robust. read the letter →

arxiv 2009.13485 v2 pith:7BLJAULV submitted 2020-09-28 quant-ph nucl-th

Alessandro Roggero , Chenyi Gu , Alessandro Baroni , Thomas Papenbrock This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phnucl-th
keywords excitedstatepreparationlinearcombinationofunitariesquantumcomputingnucleardynamicsresponsetheoryerrormitigationNISQneutron-protoncapture
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper addresses a step needed for computing nuclear reactions on a quantum computer: preparing the excited state $|\Phi_E\rangle = O|\Psi_0\rangle/\eta$ obtained by acting with a Hermitian excitation operator $O$ on a prepared state $|\Psi_0\rangle$. It compares two procedures, a short-time evolution that implements $\sin(\gamma O)$ approximately and an exact probabilistic implementation of $O$ via the linear combination of unitaries (LCU) algorithm, and it derives analytic bounds for the fidelity and success probability of each. Benchmarks on emulated and real noisy hardware, using a toy model of the thermal neutron-proton capture reaction, lead the authors to conclude that the LCU method has a larger success probability, can be implemented with a smaller CNOT count than a naive decomposition would suggest, and stays more accurate after error mitigation than the time-evolution method. The practical upshot is that a technique designed for fault-tolerant quantum computers already pays off on devices with limited connectivity and gate fidelity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the LCU circuit, built from a prepare unitary $V_P$ that loads the normalized coefficients $\sqrt{\lambda_k/\Lambda}$ into an ancilla register and a select unitary $V_S$ that applies the corresponding $U_k$ when the ancilla is in state $|k\rangle$. After the ancilla register is measured and found in $|0\rangle$, the system register is left in $O|\Psi_0\rangle/\Lambda$, which is the desired excited state up to a known normalization, with success probability $\eta^2/\Lambda^2$. The circuit analysis carries the argument by showing how $V_P$ and $V_S$ can be simplified: unused ancilla states allow controls to be dropped, controlled-$Z$ gates can be absorbed into the prepare step, and connectivity constraints can be met with a single SWAP, yielding CNOT counts far below the naive construction.

What would settle it

Take a realistic nuclear transition operator (for example the M1 operator in a shell-model or lattice basis) and compute the smallest achievable LCU decomposition for increasing basis sizes: if the ratio $\Lambda/\|O\|$ grows faster than polynomially, the success probability $\eta^2/\Lambda^2$ decays exponentially and the method cannot scale. On the hardware side, repeating the four-qubit benchmark on a five- or six-qubit instance and checking whether the CNOT count and post-mitigation accuracy follow the same pattern would also settle whether the reported advantage persists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the LCU algorithm is not only asymptotically efficient but also the better choice on today's noisy devices for this state-preparation task. Given a decomposition $O = \sum_{k=0}^L \lambda_k U_k$ with positive coefficients and 1-norm $\Lambda$, LCU produces the system state $O|\Psi_0\rangle$ with no approximation error and success probability $\eta^2/\Lambda^2$, where $\eta = \|O|\Psi_0\rangle\|$; the short-time method instead forces a tradeoff, with a target infidelity $1-F$ leading to success probability at most about $6(1-F)$. The paper shows that after exploiting unused ancilla states, the four-qubit LCU circuit for the benchmark operator needs only six CNOT gates on a fully connected topology (seven with a SWAP for the device's limited connectivity), far fewer than the 24 CNOT gates of a direct Toffoli-based implementation. On the real device, readout correction and zero-noise extrapolation bring the LCU results near the exact values: the $\chi^2$ for the success probability drops by roughly two orders of magnitude, and the ratio estimator for the transition probability is markedly less sensitive to depolarizing noise than an estimator that uses the expected success probability.

Load-bearing premise

The method scales only if the excitation operator $O$ can be written as a linear combination of unitaries whose number of terms and 1-norm $\Lambda$ grow at most polynomially with system size and remain close to $\|O\|$; the paper demonstrates this only for its one- and two-qubit toy operators.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Excited states for linear-response nuclear dynamics can be prepared exactly on the same register as the ground state whenever the excitation operator admits an LCU decomposition with a modest number of terms, removing the fidelity-versus-success-probability tradeoff of the short-time method.
  • The ratio estimator for transition probabilities, formed by dividing postselected measurements by the empirically measured success probability, automatically corrects for the leading effect of depolarizing noise and is therefore the preferred estimator when the state norm is unknown.
  • The circuit-optimization strategy generalizes: using unused ancilla states and absorbing controlled gates into rotations can lower CNOT counts of other LCU-based algorithms on near-term hardware.
  • On fault-tolerant machines, the LCU success probability can be boosted to unity with $O(1/\sqrt{P_s})$ additional gates through amplitude amplification, so the exact preparation also provides a scalable route beyond the NISQ era.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If realistic nuclear operators in larger model spaces admit LCU decompositions with $\Lambda$ close to $\|O\|$, this state-preparation routine could become the default first step for computing exclusive cross sections on near-term hardware, not just for the toy model tested here.
  • The noise-cancellation property of ratio estimators suggests a general recipe for postselection-based algorithms: whenever a success probability can be measured, forming observables as ratios should suppress depolarizing error to leading order, independent of the specific algorithm.
  • A concrete scaling test would be to compute minimal LCU decompositions of two-nucleon transition operators on lattices or shell-model bases of increasing size; if the minimal $\Lambda/\|O\|$ grows exponentially, the LCU success probability would vanish before quantum advantage is reached.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies two postselected state-preparation methods for |ΦE⟩ = O|Ψ0⟩/η: short-time unitary evolution under exp(−iγO) and the LCU algorithm. It derives analytic bounds for fidelity and success probability, gives optimized circuit implementations for a one-qubit excitation operator and for a two-dimensional model of the M1 transition in n(p,d)γ, and benchmarks both approaches on the IBM Vigo device with readout correction and zero-noise extrapolation. The main quantitative claims are that the LCU method has a larger success probability, a lower-than-naive CNOT cost after circuit optimization, and better accuracy after error mitigation than the time-evolution method.

Significance. This is a carefully executed benchmark of two practical state-preparation strategies for NISQ devices. The analytic bounds are derived without fitted parameters, the hardware results are compared against closed-form exact expectations, and the error-mitigation pipeline is described in unusual detail. The circuit-optimization trick of exploiting unused ancilla states to reduce the CNOT count is a transferable idea. If the analytic and evaluation issues identified below are fixed, the paper will be a useful reference for near-term excited-state preparation and for the specific n(p,d)γ toy model.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II A, Eq. (15)] As written, Eq. (15) is not implied by the bounds in Eq. (11) and is false for high target fidelities. Combining the lower bound in Eq. (11) with the allowed time step γ ≤ √(6(1−Fmin))/Λ gives Ps ≥ 6η²(1−Fmin)(2Fmin−1)/Λ², which vanishes as Fmin→1, whereas Eq. (15) approaches η²/Λ². For the elementary operator O=λI acting on an eigenstate (η=Λ=λ, F=1), choosing γ=√(0.06)/λ yields Ps=sin²(0.245)≈0.06 while the right-hand side of Eq. (15) is 0.98. Since this bound is called "especially important" and is the kind of statement used to support the LCU success-probability advantage, it needs to be corrected or removed.
  2. [Sec. II B, after Eq. (31)] The statement that LCU has a higher success probability than the time-evolution method whenever the target infidelity satisfies Δf ≤ 1/6 is too strong. Comparing Eq. (31) with the upper bound from Eq. (14) yields the condition η²/Λ² ≥ 6Δf, i.e. Δf ≤ η²/(6Λ²); since η ≤ Λ this threshold is at most 1/6 and can be much smaller. Already for the Sec. III operator, η=1 and Λ(θ)=|sinθ|+|cosθ|, so at θ=π/4 the correct threshold is Δf ≤ 1/12 ≈ 0.083, not 1/6. The claim and any downstream efficiency conclusions should be re-expressed with the explicit η/Λ dependence.
  3. [Secs. III and IV, Tables II, IV, V] The advertised accuracy advantage of LCU after full error mitigation is not robust across the paper's own metrics. For the n(p,d)γ transition probability, the fully mitigated TD result has χ²=0.31 versus LCU χ²=2.19, while nssd favors LCU (0.436 vs 0.253); Tables II and IV show the same split for the toy model (χ²: TD 0.65 vs LCU 1.13; nssd: TD 0.718 vs LCU 0.326). Since χ² is stated in Eq. (33) as the compatibility metric and nssd in Eq. (34) as the accuracy metric, one cannot conclude "more accurate" unless a primary metric is pre-specified or the two are combined under a stated decision rule. The different QPU acquisition dates mentioned in Sec. IV (July 20 and August 27, 2020) are an additional confound for the head-to-head comparison.
  4. [Sec. II B; Secs. III, IV] The scalability of the LCU decomposition is assumed rather than demonstrated. The method is useful for nuclear dynamics only if the number of terms L+1 and the 1-norm Λ in Eq. (2) grow polynomially with basis size and Λ stays close to ||O||; the paper verifies this only for single- and two-qubit operators with at most three LCU terms. For a realistic M1 operator in a discretized many-body basis no decomposition or Λ bound is supplied. This does not undermine the toy-model benchmarks, but the title-level promise about nuclear dynamics requires at least an explicit statement that large-system scaling is open, or a worked example with a larger operator basis.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, before Eq. (33)] After Eq. (34), the metric is defined as nssd but is called nnsd in the immediately following sentence; please make the abbreviation consistent throughout.
  2. [Eqs. (24) and (25)] The displayed bound contains an apparent extra factor η² (δV ≤ η²/4 γ⁴η²Λ²); please recheck the algebra and the substitution used to reach the final form.
  3. [Tables I–VI] The χ² and nssd values are quoted without uncertainties; since these metrics are used to rank the two methods, a bootstrap or jackknife error estimate would help the reader judge whether the differences are statistically meaningful.
  4. [Sec. IV, Fig. 12] The flagged LCU points in Fig. 12 are not identified or tallied in Table V; please state how flagged points enter the reported quality metrics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: all bounds, success probabilities, and fidelities are derived analytically from the definitions of the operators, and the hardware results are compared against closed-form exact values; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The target state |Φ_E> = O|Ψ_0>/η is defined in Eq. (1). The time-dependent method derives the postselected state, the success probability P_s = <Ψ_0|sin²(γO)|Ψ_0>, and the fidelity bounds from Taylor expansions and the operator norm bound Λ, without fitting any parameter to the data. The LCU method derives the prepared state and P_s = η²/Λ² from the standard prepare/select construction and postselection. All hardware and emulator results for P_s and the transition probabilities are compared with exact closed-form expressions such as Eqs. (10), (39), (48), and (49); no parameter is fitted to these predictions. The error mitigation procedure is a standard zero-noise extrapolation whose functional form is not a fit of the target quantity but a noise-model assumption. The self-citations to Refs. [7] and [8] supply the initial time-evolution idea and the error-mitigation protocol, but the present paper derives its own bounds, circuits, and estimators, and its benchmarks would stand even if those references were absent. The unproven assumption that the LCU decomposition has polynomially many terms for realistic many-body operators is a scalability limitation, not a circular reduction. No predicted quantity reduces by construction to an input or to a fitted parameter.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on no data-fitted constants; the only hand-chosen protocol number is the time step gamma. The main unproven assumptions are the existence of efficient LCU decompositions for larger operators, the prior availability of the initial state, and the validity of the depolarizing and CNOT-dominated noise model used in error mitigation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • gamma (time step) = 0.3
    Chosen by hand in Sec. III A to guarantee fidelity above 97% for the toy operator with Lambda_max = sqrt(2), while keeping success probability around 8-9%. It is a protocol hyperparameter, not fitted to data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The quantum register is already initialized in the desired input state |Psi0>.
    Sec. II begins with this state; the paper does not address ground-state preparation, which is a separate hard problem.
  • domain assumption The excitation operator O admits an LCU decomposition with polynomially many terms and 1-norm Lambda not much larger than ||O||.
    Sec. II B states this as an important condition; the paper demonstrates it only for the toy operators in Secs. III and IV.
  • domain assumption Hardware noise is dominated by depolarizing CNOT errors, so zero-noise extrapolation with CNOT amplification is valid.
    Appendix G and H assume this model; the consistency checks in App. H support it for the specific runs, but it is not a general guarantee.
  • domain assumption For the np(d)gamma toy model, the spatial wavefunction overlap can be absorbed into an overall scale.
    Appendix C computes only spin and isospin matrix elements and sets the spatial overlap to a constant; the authors acknowledge the states are structureless.
  • standard math Taylor's theorem with Lagrange remainder applies to bounded self-adjoint operators on the relevant subspace.
    Used in Appendix A to derive the bounds in Eqs. (A1)-(A7).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Preparation of excited states for nuclear dynamics on a quantum computer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7BLJAULV

@misc{pith2026200913485,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Preparation of excited states for nuclear dynamics on a quantum computer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7BLJAULV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2009.13485}
}
abstract

We study two different methods to prepare excited states on a quantum computer, a key initial step to study dynamics within linear response theory. The first method uses unitary evolution for a short time $T=\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{1-F})$ to approximate the action of an excitation operator $\hat{O}$ with fidelity $F$ and success probability $P\approx1-F$. The second method probabilistically applies the excitation operator using the Linear Combination of Unitaries (LCU) algorithm. We benchmark these techniques on emulated and real quantum devices, using a toy model for thermal neutron-proton capture. Despite its larger memory footprint, the LCU-based method is efficient even on current generation noisy devices and can be implemented at a lower gate cost than a naive analysis would suggest. These findings show that quantum techniques designed to achieve good asymptotic scaling on fault tolerant quantum devices might also provide practical benefits on devices with limited connectivity and gate fidelity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2009.13485 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Quantum circuits defined in the text: (A) state prepa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Linear combination of unitaries (LCU) circuit dia [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) Estimated bounds for both the success [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online) Layout of the IBM quantum device [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Explicit circuit construction for the unitaries defined [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Implementation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Complete LCU circuits in second quantization: (A) assumes all-to-all connectivity while (B) is designed for implemen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (Color online) Results on the success probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. (Color online) Results for the transition probabilities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. (Color online) Results on the success probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. (Color online) Results on the transition probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Circuit representation of common unitaries (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Controlled single qubit rotations: (A) single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Quantum circuits described in the text. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Quantum circuits described in the text. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Quantum circuits described in the text. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Quantum circuits described in the text. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_19.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    The idea is to collect data at different noise levels and then use a sensible parametrization of the noise dependence of an observ- able to extract a noise free estimator

    Zero-noise extrapolation We now describe in more detail the zero-noise extrap- olation described briefly above. The idea is to collect data at different noise levels and then use a sensible parametrization of the noise dependence of an observ- able to extract a noise free estimator. Since, as discussed above, in the quantum devices used in this work the CNO...

    work page

  2. [1]

    (E6) We first notice that the propagator U(γ) is a rotation around the X axis e−iγO =e−iγ sin(θ)Rx (2γ cos(θ)) , (E7) because the constant term contributes only to a global phase

    Simple excitation operator Let us consider the simple model excitation O(θ) = cos(θ)X + sin(θ)1. (E6) We first notice that the propagator U(γ) is a rotation around the X axis e−iγO =e−iγ sin(θ)Rx (2γ cos(θ)) , (E7) because the constant term contributes only to a global phase. We use the the identity Rx(θ) = HRz(θ)H, and the controlled time-evolution operat...

    work page

  3. [2]

    In the latter case, qubits (2 , 3) represented ancilla qubits and qubit 1 was the system

    for the time-dependent method and qubits (2, 3, 1) for the LCU-based method. In the latter case, qubits (2 , 3) represented ancilla qubits and qubit 1 was the system. As we have seen from the results of the previous sec- tion, simulations using a Virtual Machine are not realis- tic enough to predict accurately the behavior of the real QPU and for this rea...

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    (C10) O(θ′) =αI +βX +γZ

    Nuclear excitation operator Here we present the quantum circuit for the nuclear excitation operator from Eq. (C10) O(θ′) =αI +βX +γZ . (E8) The rotation obtained by exponentiation of this operator can be again decomposed in Euler angles as above and the result for U†(γ) reads eiγO =eiδRz(−x1)Ry(x2)Rz(−x3) . (E9) Here the rotation angles are those for the ...

    work page

  5. [4]

    (F1) Here 1 denotes the 4× 4 identity

    Simple excitation operator The simple excitation operator of interest is O2(θ) = cos(θ) 2 (X0X1 +Y0Y1) + sin(θ)1. (F1) Here 1 denotes the 4× 4 identity. We use the following mapping between ancillary qubit states and the operators on the left-hand side of Eq. (F1) |00⟩→ 1, |10⟩→ X0X1, |11⟩→ Y0Y1 . (F2) The circuit corresponding to the select unitary is di...

    work page

  6. [5]

    Nuclear excitation operator We show how to implement the LCU oracle for the more complicated case of the nuclear excitation operator O(θ) =α1 +βX−αZ , (F5) where the two real constants are given by Eq. (C10). We choose the state-to-operator mapping as follows |00⟩→ 1 |01⟩→ 1 |10⟩→ X |11⟩→− Z . (F6) For the caseβ≥ 0, the full circuit is given in Fig. 18(A)...

    work page

  7. [6]

    Readout error mitigation We will review here the readout-error correction scheme used in this work (see also [43]). In the follow- ing we will assume the read-out errors are independent for different qubits and can be described in terms of two parameters: • e0: probability to get |1⟩ when we prepare|0⟩ • e1: probability to get |0⟩ when we prepare|1⟩ which ...

    work page

  8. [8]

    = (Or 1,Er 1). Before describing the algorithm for consistency check, we need to introduce one more definition: we will say that two data points ( OA,EA) and (OB,EB) are compatible with each other at the mσ level if |OA−OB|≤ m √ E2 A +E2 B m≥ 1. (H15) We will indicate this relation compactly as (OA,EA) m == (OB,EB). (H16) We can now describe the consistenc...

    work page

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Error propagation The results reported in the main text contain also an error which we use to quantify the effect of statistical fluc- tuations 3. In this work we obtained these errors using a simple resampling technique: we first obtain the read-out mitigated results{Or k} at al...

  2. [10]

    Quantum computing,

    Andrew Steane, “Quantum computing,” Reports on Progress in Physics 61, 117 (1998)

    1998

  3. [11]

    Quantum computers,

    T. D. Ladd, F. Jelezko, R. Laflamme, Y. Nakamura, C. Monroe, and J. L. O’Brien, “Quantum computers,” Nature 464, 45–53 (2010), arXiv:1009.2267 [quant-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Real-time dynamics of lattice gauge theories with a few-qubit quantum computer,

    E. A. Martinez, C. A. Muschik, P. Schindler, D. Nigg, A. Erhard, M. Heyl, P. Hauke, M. Dalmonte, T. Monz, P. Zoller, and R. Blatt, “Real-time dynamics of lattice gauge theories with a few-qubit quantum computer,” Na- ture 534, 516–519 (2016), arXiv:1605.04570 [quant-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Ground States via Spectral Combing on a Quantum Computer,

    D. B. Kaplan, N. Klco, and A. Roggero, “Ground States via Spectral Combing on a Quantum Computer,” ArXiv e-prints (2017), arXiv:1709.08250 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Cloud quantum computing of an atomic nucleus,

    E. F. Dumitrescu, A. J. McCaskey, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, T. D. Morris, T. Papenbrock, R. C. Pooser, D. J. Dean, and P. Lougovski, “Cloud quantum computing of an atomic nucleus,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 210501 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Quantum-classical computation of schwinger model dynamics using quantum computers,

    N. Klco, E. F. Dumitrescu, A. J. McCaskey, T. D. Mor- ris, R. C. Pooser, M. Sanz, E. Solano, P. Lougovski, and M. J. Savage, “Quantum-classical computation of schwinger model dynamics using quantum computers,” Phys. Rev. A 98, 032331 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    Dynamic lin- ear response quantum algorithm,

    Alessandro Roggero and Joseph Carlson, “Dynamic lin- ear response quantum algorithm,” Phys. Rev. C 100, 034610 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Quantum comput- ing for neutrino-nucleus scattering,

    Alessandro Roggero, Andy C. Y. Li, Joseph Carlson, Ra- jan Gupta, and Gabriel N. Perdue, “Quantum comput- ing for neutrino-nucleus scattering,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 074038 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    The shell model as a unified view of nuclear structure,

    E. Caurier, G. Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, F. Nowacki, A. Poves, and A. P. Zuker, “The shell model as a unified view of nuclear structure,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 427–488 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond,

    John Preskill, “Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond,” Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Error mitigation for short-depth quantum cir- cuits,

    Kristan Temme, Sergey Bravyi, and Jay M. Gam- betta, “Error mitigation for short-depth quantum cir- cuits,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180509 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Error mitigation ex- tends the computational reach of a noisy quantum pro- cessor,

    A. Kandala, K. Temme, A. D. C´ orcoles, A. Mezzacapo, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, “Error mitigation ex- tends the computational reach of a noisy quantum pro- cessor,” Nature 567, 491 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Solar fusion cross sections. ii. the pp chain and cno cycles,

    E. G. Adelberger, A. Garc´ ıa, R. G. Hamish Robert- son, K. A. Snover, A. B. Balantekin, K. Heeger, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, D. Bemmerer, A. Junghans, C. A. Bertulani, J.-W. Chen, H. Costantini, P. Prati, M. Couder, E. Uberseder, M. Wiescher, R. Cyburt, B. Davids, S. J. Freedman, ...

    2011

  15. [23]

    Effective field theory for low-energy two- nucleon systems,

    Tae-Sun Park, Kuniharu Kubodera, Dong-Pil Min, and Mannque Rho, “Effective field theory for low-energy two- nucleon systems,” Phys. Rev. C 58, R637–R640 (1998)

    1998

  16. [24]

    Nucleon-nucleon effective field theory without pions,

    Jiunn-Wei Chen, Gautam Rupak, and Martin J. Savage, “Nucleon-nucleon effective field theory without pions,” Nuclear Physics A 653, 386 – 412 (1999)

    1999

  17. [25]

    n → p dγ for big- bang nucleosynthesis,

    Jiunn-Wei Chen and Martin J. Savage, “ n → p dγ for big- bang nucleosynthesis,” Phys. Rev. C 60, 065205 (1999)

    1999

  18. [26]

    Fermionic quantum computation,

    Sergey B. Bravyi and Alexei Yu. Kitaev, “Fermionic quantum computation,” Annals of Physics 298, 210 – 226 (2002)

    2002

  19. [27]

    Local spin operators for fermion simulations,

    James D. Whitfield, Vojt ˇ ech Havl´ ıˇ cek, and Matthias Troyer, “Local spin operators for fermion simulations,” Phys. Rev. A 94, 030301 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    Superfast encodings for fermionic quantum simulation,

    Kanav Setia, Sergey Bravyi, Antonio Mezzacapo, and James D. Whitfield, “Superfast encodings for fermionic quantum simulation,” Phys. Rev. Research 1, 033033 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Quantum codes for quantum simulation of fermions on a square lattice of qubits,

    Mark Steudtner and Stephanie Wehner, “Quantum codes for quantum simulation of fermions on a square lattice of qubits,” Phys. Rev. A 99, 022308 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    Low Weight Fermionic Encodings for Lattice Models,

    Charles Derby and Joel Klassen, “Low Weight Fermionic Encodings for Lattice Models,” arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2003.06939 (2020), arXiv:2003.06939 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Nielsen and I.L

    M.A. Nielsen and I.L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    Universal quantum simulators,

    Seth Lloyd, “Universal quantum simulators,” Science 273, 1073–1078 (1996)

    1996

  25. [33]

    Nonunitary opera- tions for ground-state calculations in near-term quantum computers,

    Guglielmo Mazzola, Pauline J. Ollitrault, Panagiotis Kl. Barkoutsos, and Ivano Tavernelli, “Nonunitary opera- tions for ground-state calculations in near-term quantum computers,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 130501 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Hiroaki Terashima and Masahito Ueda, Int. J. Quantum Inform. 3, 633–647 (2005)

    2005

  27. [35]

    Hamiltonian simulation using linear combinations of unitary oper- ations,

    Andrew M. Childs and Nathan Wiebe, “Hamiltonian simulation using linear combinations of unitary oper- ations,” Quantum Information and Computation 12, 0901–0924 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    Simulating hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated taylor series,

    Dominic W. Berry, Andrew M. Childs, Richard Cleve, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D. Somma, “Simulating hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated taylor series,” 25 Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 090502 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    Optimal hamil- tonian simulation by quantum signal processing,

    Guang Hao Low and Isaac L. Chuang, “Optimal hamil- tonian simulation by quantum signal processing,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 010501 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    Quantum algorithm for systems of linear equa- tions with exponentially improved dependence on pre- cision,

    Andrew M. Childs, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D. Somma, “Quantum algorithm for systems of linear equa- tions with exponentially improved dependence on pre- cision,” SIAM Journal on Computing 46, 1920–1950 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Universal quantum circuit for two-qubit transformations with three controlled-not gates,

    G. Vidal and C. M. Dawson, “Universal quantum circuit for two-qubit transformations with three controlled-not gates,” Phys. Rev. A 69, 010301 (2004)

    2004

  32. [40]

    Optimal quantum circuits for general two-qubit gates,

    Farrokh Vatan and Colin Williams, “Optimal quantum circuits for general two-qubit gates,” Phys. Rev. A 69, 032315 (2004)

    2004

  33. [41]

    Qiskit: An open-source frame- work for quantum computing,

    H´ ector Abraham et. al, “Qiskit: An open-source frame- work for quantum computing,” (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    IBM Vigo backend specifi- cation v1.0.2,

    5qubit backed: IBM Q team, “IBM Vigo backend specifi- cation v1.0.2,” (2020), retrieved from https://quantum- computing.ibm.com

    2020

  35. [43]

    Efficient variational quantum simulator incorporating active error minimiza- tion,

    Ying Li and Simon C. Benjamin, “Efficient variational quantum simulator incorporating active error minimiza- tion,” Phys. Rev. X 7, 021050 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    Prac- tical quantum error mitigation for near-future applica- tions,

    Suguru Endo, Simon C. Benjamin, and Ying Li, “Prac- tical quantum error mitigation for near-future applica- tions,” Phys. Rev. X 8, 031027 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    On the cnot- cost of toffoli gates,

    Vivek V. Shende and Igor L. Markov, “On the cnot- cost of toffoli gates,” Quantum Info. Comput. 9, 461–486 (2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    Hamiltonian Sim- ulation by Qubitization,

    Guang Hao Low and Isaac L. Chuang, “Hamiltonian Sim- ulation by Qubitization,” Quantum 3, 163 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    Quantum singular value transformation and be- yond: Exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics,

    Andr´ as Gily´ en, Yuan Su, Guang Hao Low, and Nathan Wiebe, “Quantum singular value transformation and be- yond: Exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics,” in STOC 2019: Proceedings, STOC 2019 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2019) p. 193–204

    2019

  40. [48]

    Spectral-density estimation with the gaus- sian integral transform,

    A. Roggero, “Spectral-density estimation with the gaus- sian integral transform,” Phys. Rev. A 102, 022409 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Elementary gates for quantum computation,

    Adriano Barenco, Charles H. Bennett, Richard Cleve, David P. DiVincenzo, Norman Margolus, Peter Shor, Ty- cho Sleator, John A. Smolin, and Harald Weinfurter, “Elementary gates for quantum computation,” Phys. Rev. A 52, 3457–3467 (1995)

    1995

  42. [50]

    Quantum simulation of the sachdev-ye-kitaev model by asymmetric qubitization,

    Ryan Babbush, Dominic W. Berry, and Hartmut Neven, “Quantum simulation of the sachdev-ye-kitaev model by asymmetric qubitization,” Phys. Rev. A 99, 040301 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    Zero-noise extrapolation for quantum-gate error mitigation with identity insertions,

    Andre He, Benjamin Nachman, Wibe A. de Jong, and Christian W. Bauer, “Zero-noise extrapolation for quantum-gate error mitigation with identity insertions,” Phys. Rev. A 102, 012426 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Hardware-efficient variational quan- tum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum mag- nets,

    Abhinav Kandala, Antonio Mezzacapo, Kristan Temme, Maika Takita, Markus Brink, Jerry M Chow, and Jay M Gambetta, “Hardware-efficient variational quan- tum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum mag- nets,” Nature 549, 242–246 (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    Mitigating algorithmic errors in a hamilto- nian simulation,

    Suguru Endo, Qi Zhao, Ying Li, Simon Benjamin, and Xiao Yuan, “Mitigating algorithmic errors in a hamilto- nian simulation,” Phys. Rev. A 99, 012334 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.